facts in his verified complaint and affidavit, read in the light most favorable to

Gray, to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Childers made a

statement from which a jury could reasonably infer retaliation for exercising his

right to file grievances. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir.

1995) (concluding that plaintiff’s verified complaint constituted an opposing

affidavit where it cited two specific instances where correctional staff members

made statements from which a jury could reasonably infer a retaliatory motive for

3 plaintiff’s subsequent transfer); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,

567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

Gray also averred that this threat chilled his willingness to file grievances. See

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he mere threat of

harm can be an adverse action.” (citation omitted)); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283,

1288 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] chilling effect on a prisoner’s First Amendment right to

file prison grievances is sufficient to raise a retaliation claim.”). Therefore, we

vacate the grant of summary judgment to defendant Childers on Gray’s First

Amendment retaliation claim and remand for further proceedings.

4. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gray’s Eighth

Amendment claim against all defendants because Gray failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants knowingly disregarded an

excessive risk to his health during the contraband watch. Gray alleges that he was

placed in the dry cell for three days, during which time he was only permitted to

wear underwear; that the dry cell was “frigid” and that he was shivering and unable

to sleep; that he was dehydrated, as evidenced by dark urine; that his urine bucket

was emptied only once a day; and that he was not permitted to clean his hands after

using the bathroom, which resulted in vomiting and night sweats. The Supreme

Court has stated that certain combinations of conditions, such as “a low cell

4 temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets,” may establish

Eighth Amendment violations, see Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991);

however, Gray did not allege or aver that he complained about, or that defendants

were otherwise aware of, the cold temperatures in his cell or his resulting inability

to sleep. Thus, he cannot make out an Eighth Amendment claim. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable

under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of

confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

health[.]”). We affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

5