Case ID: f-appx_465/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Lorenzo ARMENTERO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, CDCR Secretary; Matthew Kramer, Warden, Folsom State Prison, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-16307.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2012.
    Luis Lorenzo Armentero, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (reference to original and first amended complaints was precluded by doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading).

Armentero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.