Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01595-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY A. HALL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1595 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 27, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations as to plaintiff’s equal protection and

due process claims to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 95 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court, however, does not adopt the findings and recommendations as to plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim. The findings and recommendations overstate the

period plaintiff was denied exercise. The record supports a finding that plaintiff was locked

down between forty-two and sixty-four days, rather than the sixty to ninety days cited by the

magistrate judge. More importantly, plaintiff’s allegations do not raise a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the denial of exercise violated his Eighth Amendment rights. This

action does not resemble Allen v. Sakai, 40 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 1994). The prisoner in Allen was

denied exercise due to “logistical problems” during a six-week stay in the Special Holding Unit

following disciplinary infractions. Id. at 1004. In contrast, defendants justify Hall’s denial of

exercise based upon continuing security threats stemming from a violent race riot within the

prison. Here, as in Hayward v. Procunier, a genuine emergency existed necessitating lockdown,

denial of exercise was temporary and regularly reassessed, and restrictions were eased as the

emergency situation permitted. 629 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1980). The outbreak of another

violent riot days after the lockdown’s end suggests that, if anything, defendants may have

removed restrictions too quickly. Contrary to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations, defendants provide numerous reasons for denying exercise for inmates

uninvolved in the riot, such as continuing uncertainty as to which inmates were involved, the

difficulty in assessing the threat posed by inmates arriving after the riot, and pressure on inmates

not previously involved to commit new acts of violence. Therefore, undisputed evidence shows

that the denial of exercise was justified and not cruel and unusual punishment. 

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 95 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2006 are adopted except as 

 to plaintiff’s denial of exercise claim; and

2. Pursuant to this court’s supplemental analysis regarding plaintiff’s denial of 

 exercise claim, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: 9/29/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 95 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3