Cox
Cox v. Clark
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Nevada state prisoner Steve Michael Cox appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to state a claim); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (failure to exhaust); Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (summary judgment). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Cox’s conspiracy allegations against defendants McDaniel, Endel, Nev-en, L. Williams, MacArthur, D’Amico, Smith and Jacques because Cox made only eonclusory allegations. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that eonclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy).
The district court properly dismissed Cox’s allegations regarding his placement in an observation cell because the temporary placement of suicidal prisoners in “safety cells” does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313-15 (9th Cir.1995).