Case Name: Gregory McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CASEY and S. Buentiempo, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-05
Citations: 398 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 09-17008
Parties: Gregory McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CASEY and S. Buentiempo, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
Gregory McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CASEY and S. Buentiempo, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17008.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
Gregory McKinney, Delano, CA, pro se.
Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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
California state prisoner Gregory McKinney appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of adequate 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because McKinney failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants caused the alleged denial of exercise. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir.1988) (an official is liable under section 1983 only "if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation" of which plaintiff complains) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney's motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Com Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review).
McKinney's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.