Keith Arline, Jr. v. R. Gower , 667 F. App'x 948 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 03 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,                         No. 15-15293
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03414-WBS-
    KJN
    v.
    R. GOWER; et al.,                                MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 26, 2016**
    Before:        SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the
    district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
    defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by depriving him of outdoor
    exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Speers
    because Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Speers caused
    any constitutional violation. See Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 
    479 F.3d 1175
    , 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing causation under § 1983).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
    Gower, Davey, and Hitt on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not
    have been clear to every reasonable official that depriving Arline of outdoor
    exercise in response to a violent attack on a prison official was unconstitutional.
    See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 
    563 U.S. 731
    , 735, 741 (2011) (explaining two-part test
    for qualified immunity); see also Norwood v. Vance, 
    591 F.3d 1062
    , 1068-70 (9th
    Cir. 2010) (discussing the application of qualified immunity where prisoners were
    deprived of outdoor exercise in response to prison violence).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     15-15293
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-15293

Citation Numbers: 667 F. App'x 948

Judges: Schroeder, Canby, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024