Case Name: Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG, Director of the California Dept. of Mental Health; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-25
Citations: 473 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 11-15235
Parties: Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG, Director of the California Dept. of Mental Health; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen W. MAYBERG, Director of the California Dept. of Mental Health; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15235.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 25, 2012.
Lawtis Donald Rhoden, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Christine M. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Lawtis Donald Rhoden, who is civilly committed in California as a sexually violent predator, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide greater access to a smoke-free outdoor exercise area between 2006 and 2008. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 966 n. 18 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rhoden's action after concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the right of civil detainees to regular smoke-free outdoor exercise was not clearly established. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) ("For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.