Charles A. Rhinehart, AKA Charles R. Withers v. Pima County Jail Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff Stanley L. Cheske

981 F.2d 1259 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles A. RHINEHART, aka Charles R. Withers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIMA COUNTY JAIL; Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff; Stanley L. Cheske, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15488. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 21, 1992. * Decided Dec. 24, 1992. Before TANG, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arizona state prisoner Charles A. Rhinehart appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment due to overcrowding and unsafe and unsanitary conditions at Pima County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1989). 4 A motion for summary judgment should be granted only if the evidence, read in…