Faye Slice v. Robert McFadden
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Former federal prisoner Faye Elise Slice appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action, brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that, defendants violated her Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Slice’s claims concerning pesticides, overcrowding, building dilapidation and “sick building syndrome” because Slice failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to her health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (prisoner must make a subjective showing that prison…