Gregory Franklin v. L. Scribner

Good Law
471 F. App'x 803
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 201210-56657California383 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Gregory Allen Franklin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in connection with the denial of outdoor exercise and special shoes for his foot condition when he was required to leave his cell during a cell search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Franklin’s outdoor exercise claim because Franklin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they temporarily restricted access to outdoor exercise during an emergency lockdown. See Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir.1980) (temporary deprivation of outdoor exercise in response to a genuine emergency did not violate Eighth Amendment); see also Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138, 1142-43 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining that it is not clearly established “precisely how, according to the Constitution, or when a prison facility housing problem inmates must return…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.