Luis Armentero v. James Tilton

MEMORANDUM

Luis Lorenzo Armentero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison lock-downs violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Armentero’s claim based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs because Armentero failed to allege that defendants were aware of an excessive risk to his health based on his placement in segregation during prison lockdowns. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004).

To the extent that Armentero challenged the conditions of his confinement based on a lack of exercise, the district court properly dismissed his claim because Armentero failed to allege a substantial deprivation in his second amended complaint. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that “a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a substantial deprivation” under the Eighth Amendment); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d…