Keith Arline, Jr. v. Ken Clark

MEMORANDUM

Keith Duane Arline, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Arline’s action against defendants Vasquez, Clark, and Sherman because Arline failed to allege facts sufficient to link these defendants to any constitutional violation. See Arnold, v. Int’l Bus. Macks. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible…