NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 (1971), 

* 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 APPEALS
 2 

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 claim 

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”).

The 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 district court properly 

dismissed the claim because Martinez failed to allege medical effects as a result of 

any temporary denial of exercise. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 

1997) (“a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a 
 3 

substantial deprivation,” a requirement of an Eighth Amendment conditions-ofconfinement claim). 

The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim 

alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 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.