Legal Opinion

Williams v. Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 18, 2006No. 05-55355PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Floyd Williams, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was denied outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

A temporary denial of outdoor exercise during an emergency lockdown period does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir.1980)…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robert Eugene Beene v. Cal A. Terhune James Nielson Roger Schaufel J.M. Widener, Parole AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  2. Hayward v. ProcunierCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hurd v. GarciaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API