Maurice Olivier v. L. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Maurice Olivier appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various employees at Calipatria State Prison (“CSP”), where Olivier was incarcerated. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Reviewing de novo and liberally construing Olivier’s pro se complaint, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010), we conclude that Olivier alleged facts sufficient to state plausible Eighth Amendment claims based on deprivation of outdoor exercise time, constant illumination in his prison cell, and lack of attention to his medical needs.

1. CSP’s prior warden, Scribner, allegedly deprived Olivier of outdoor exercise for 73 days by ordering a prison-wide lock-down, thereby creating a “sufficiently serious” threat to his health to satisfy the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir.2010). Scribner allegedly ordered the lockdown in his capacity as warden. We have held that the risk created by depriving inmates of outdoor exercise is obvious to a prison warden as a matter of law. Id. Scribner allegedly had no…