T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 08-17677 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CH RI STO PH ER A . J O N ES, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D W I G H T N E V E N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17677 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 0 8 8 - J C MG WF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r22, 2010 ** B efo re: W A L L A C E , H A W K IN S , an d T H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C hr i s t ophe rA . J one s ( “ J one s ” ) , aN e va das t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c tio n a lle g in g th a t th e y v io la te d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b y e x p o s in g h im to 

# FI LED OC T 06 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08-17677 2 uns a f e l e ve l s of

e nvi r onm e nt a l t oba c c o s m oke ( “ E T S ” ) , f or c i ng hi m t o s l e e p on a c e ll f lo o rw ith c o n s ta n t illu m in a tio n a n d n o is e f r o m alig h t f

ix tu r e , a n d f

a ilin g to in f o rm h im th a t h e h a d te s te d p o s itiv e f o rh e p a titis C . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onve rt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o a s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on, butthe de f e nda nt s f a i l e d t o s e rve on J one s a ny of the e vi de nc e the y s ubm i tt e d i n c a m e r ai n s upportof the m ot i on. I n a ddi t i on, the d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t a f

f o r d J o n e s a n a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ity to o b ta in a n d s u b m it re bu tt al evi dence. In part i cul ar , do cum ent s thatthe di stri ctcourtordered att ac hed to J o n e s ’s v e r if

ie dA m e n d e d C o m p la in t d o n o t ap p e a rin th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e c o r d . M oreover, the di stri ctcourtdeni ed Jones’ s m ot i on t o st ayre sol ut i on of sum m ary j ud gm entpend i ng an op po rtun i ty f or di sc ov ery und erR ul e 56(f) of the F eder al R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e . C o n s e q u e n tly , J o n e s h a d n o m e a n in g f u l o p p o rtu n ity to o p p o s e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See P r ogr am E ng’ g, I nc . v . T r i angle P ubl ’ ns , I

nc ., 634 F . 2d 1188, 1193 ( 9th C i r . 1980) ( “ G e ne r a l l y w he r e apa rty ha s ha d no pr e vi ous o p p o rtu n ity to d e v e lo p e v id e n c e a n d th e e v id e n c e is c ru c ia l to m a te r ia l is s u e s in the c a s e , di s c ove ry s houl d be a l l ow e d be f or e the tr i a l c ourtrul e s on am ot i on f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” ) ; se e a l so F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( f

) ; R and v . R ow land , 154 F . 3d 95 2, 96 0-61 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( en banc) (s ett i ng forth ri gh t s of apro se pri soner f ac ed w i th sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on , i ncl ud i ng ri gh tt o p re se ntre bu tt al evi dence).08-17677 3 T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, al t ernat i vel y, thatJones’ s c l ai m s do n otse t forth v i ol at i on s of c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s thatw er e c l earl y e st abl i shed and that the r e f or e de f e nda nt s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T he E i ghth A m e ndm e nt r ig h ts J o n e s c la im s d e f

e n d a n ts v io la te d , h o w e v e r , w e r e c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d . See H el l i ngv. McKi nn ey , 5 0 9 U .S . 2 5 , 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( E T S e x p o s u r e c a n b e a c tio n ab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 ) ; Ke e n a n v . H a ll , 83 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 89 -92 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( sa m e r e e x c e s s iv e n o is e , 2 4 - h o u rillu m in a tio n , a n d in a d e q u a te v e n tila tio n ) ; B roug hton v. C ut te rL abs ., 6 2 2 F .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 5 9 - 6 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( s a m e r e h e p a titis tre atm ent ); Ja ckso n v. McIn to sh , 9 0 F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( “m e d ic a lly u n a c c e p tab le ” tr e a tm e n t d e la y c a n e s tab lis h d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . W e d e c lin e to consi der, i n the fi rs ti nst ance , “ w hether i tw ou l d b e c l ear t o a re as on abl e off i ce r thathi s c on du ctw as un l aw ful i n the si tuat i on he confront ed. ” See Sa u c ie rv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 2 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . W i th the e xc e pt i on of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i thoutpr e j udi c e of Jones’ s c l ai m for profes si on al negl i gence, w hi ch w e a ff i rm , w e vac at e the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de r . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc ourts ha l l e ns ur e tha tthe de f e nda nt s s e rve on J one s aphot oc opy of e a c h pa ge of

doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d f orthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c ons i de r a t i on. S uc h s e rvi c e on J one s s ha l l be c ont e m por a ne ous w i th the s ubm i s s i on of

doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e t o the di s tr i c tc ourta nd s ha l l be08-17677 4 subj ec tt o any prot ec t i ve order the di stri ctcourtm aychoo se t o ent er . T he di stri ct c o u rt s h o u ld a ls o g r a n t J o n e s a n o p p o rtu n ity to c o n d u c t d is c o v e ry b e f o r e it r e s ol ve s a ny s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on. T h e c le rks h a ll f

ile J o n e s ’s m o tio n to c u r e d e f ic ie n c y in th e r e c o r d , w h ic h is d e n ie d a s m o o t. V AC AT E D i n p a r t , AF F I RME D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.