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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc 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 ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 K E I T H D U A N E A R L I N E , J r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. KE N C L AR K, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 18050 D. C . No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 0 9 7 - L J OG BC 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 o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e i th D ua ne A r l i ne , J r . , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j ud gm enti n h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng that de f e nda ntvi ol a t e d hi s E i ghth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s i n c onne c t i on w i th the de ni a l of 

# FI LED OC T 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 18050 2 out doore xe r c i s e . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, J

ones v . B i anas , 39 3 F . 3d 91 8, 92 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ), an dfo r an ab u se o f d i scret i o n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s, U ni ted States v. W

. R . G race , 5 0 4 F. 3 d7 4 5 , 7 5 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n A r lin e ’s E ig h th A m endm entcl ai m because A rl i ne fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ct a s t o w he the rde f

e nda nta c t e d w i th de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e w he n he i m pos e d a m od i fi ed prog ram , i n res po nse t o a se curi ty bre ac h, thatt em po rari l y r es tri ct ed in m a te s ’ a c c e s s to o u td o o re x e r c is e . See H ayw ard v. P rocuni er , 629 F . 2d 599, 603 ( 9th C i r . 1980) ( t e m por a ryde pr i va t i on of out doore xe r c i s e i n r e s pons e t o ge nui ne e m e r g e n c yd idn o t v io la te E ig h th A m e n d m e n t) ; se e al so N orw oo d v. V

an ce , 591 F .3 d1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 8 - 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( p r is o n o f f ic ia ls e n title dto q u a lif

ie dim m u n ity on de ni a l of

out doore xe r c i s e c l a i m be c aus e ar e a s onabl e of f i c e rc oul d ha ve bel i eved thatre stri ct i ng ou t do or exerc i se du ri ng pri son sec uri ty l ockd ow n w as const i tut i on al ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n refu si n g t o co n si d er th o se s ta te m e n ts in A r lin e ’s d e c lar a tio n th a t w e r e n o t w ith in h is p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ) ( “ A n aff i davi tor decl ar at i on used t o sup po rtor op po se a11- 18050 3 m ot i on m us tbe m a de on pe r s ona l know l e dge . . . a nd s how tha tthe a f f i a ntor decl ar anti s c om pet entt o t es t i fyon the m att er s s t at ed. ”) . AF F I RME D.