Hardney

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants T.L. Rosario, S.J. Vance, and Cheryl Pliler, (“defendants”) seek interlocutory review of the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in California state prisoner John Frederick Hardney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We review de novo, Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

Hardney’s action alleged, inter alia, that he was cruelly and unusually punished in that he was confined to his cell without outdoor exercise for approximately 74 straight days, followed by another period of 67 days of “lockdown.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that it was reasonable to impose continued lockdown restrictions during a state of emergency in a good faith effort to ensure inmate safety.

The district court properly denied defendant’s motion because Hardney’s right to outdoor exercise is clearly established. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087-1088 (9th Cir.1994) (Eighth Amendment violation found…