NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees, No. 19

- 56296
D.C. No. 5:15

- cv - 02160

- TJH

- AFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 23, 2020 * *
Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER , and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges. Phillip Martinez, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (19 71),

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 25 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

alleging violations of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Adams v. Johnson , 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Fifth Amendment clai m concerning his placement in a maximum

- security prison because inmates lack a protected liberty interest in their housing or classification status. See Meachum v.
Fano , 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (holding that an inmate lacked due process protections in his transfer between prisons, resulting in a reclassification to maximum security, because the transfer was “within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose”); see also Moody v. Daggett , 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (stating that Meachum’s holding applies to “prison classification . . . in the federal system”).

T he district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim alleging inadequate exercise , first, because a Bivens remedy is not available for
such a claim

. See Ziglar v. Abbasi , 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017) (urging courts to use caution before extending the Bivens remedy into new contexts and requiring a “special factors” analysis before doing so). Second, the distri ct court properly
dismissed the claim because Martinez failed to allege medical effects as a result of

any temporary denial of exercise

. S ee May v. Baldwin , 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (“a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a3

substantial deprivation ,” a requirement of an Eighth Amendment conditions

- of

confinement claim ). The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical nee d because Martinez failed

to allege facts showing that he had a serious medical need or that any defendant was deliberately indifferent that need. See Peralta v. Dillard , 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“ Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. A medical need is serious if failure to treat it will result in significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” (citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted) ).
AFFIRMED.