Garcia

Garcia v. Maddock

Good Law
64 F. App'x 10
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 28, 2003No. 02-15540; D.C. No. CV-97-01490-LKK/PANCalifornia837 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Tomas Garcia, a California state prisoner, brought this action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by exposing him to second-hand smoke, refusing to provide proper medical care for his smoke-related illnesses, and retaliating for his grievance filings. The district court granted summary judgment, ruling there was no constitutional violations and that Garcia failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Eighth Amendment Claim

We have held that “it is cruel and unusual punishment to house a prisoner in an environment that exposes him to environmental tobacco smoke (‘ETS’) at such levels and under such circumstances that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm to his health.” See McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 853 (9th Cir.1992), aff'd Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 , 113 S.Ct. 2475 , 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). The district court assumed that Garcia’s claims of exposure were true, but nonetheless ruled there was no evidence that defendants (other than Andreasen) were “deliberately indifferent to [Garcia’s] plight.” We agree. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.