Case Name: Keith Duane ARLINE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GOWER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 948
Docket Number: No. 15-15293
Parties: Keith Duane ARLINE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GOWER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER; CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 948–949

Head Matter:
Keith Duane ARLINE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GOWER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15293
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 03, 2016
Keith Duane Arline, Jr., Pro Se
Christopher J. Becker, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER; CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by depriving him of outdoor exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Speers be cause Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Speers caused any constitutional violation. See Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing causation under § 1983).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Gower, Da-vey, and Hitt on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that depriving Arline of outdoor exercise in response to a violent attack on a prison official was unconstitutional. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); see also Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1068-70 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing the application of qualified immunity where prisoners were deprived of outdoor exercise in response to prison violence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.