Smith v. Sublett

977 F.2d 591 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Joe Clarence SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam SUBLETT, Deputy Warden; Lt. Mincey, Special Services, Cell Block 6; Sgt. Hinkle, Property Room Supervisor, Cell Block 6; CSO Ramirez, Unit Supply Officer Cell Block 6, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-16129. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 13, 1992. * Decided Oct. 19, 1992. Before BEEZER, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Joe C. Smith, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in his civil rights action against various prison officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. 3 * Standard of Review 4 Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of…