Anthony Bailey v. Rich Suey

MEMORANDUM

Former Clark County pretrial detainee Anthony Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bailey’s claim alleging a denial of outdoor exercise because under any potentially applicable standard Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied outdoor exercise for a period of time longer than permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment is proper if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is not “sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party”); Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128 (conditions of confinement claim by pretrial detainee is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); cf. Castro v.…