Luis Lorenzo Armentero v. JAMES E. TILTON, CDCR Secretary; MATTHEW KRAMER, Warden, Folsom State Prison

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, CDCR Secretary;
MATTHEW KRAMER, Warden, Folsom
State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16307
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Lorenzo Armentero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
lockdowns violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16307 2
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Armentero’s claim based on deliberate
indifference to his medical needs because Armentero failed to allege that
defendants were aware of an excessive risk to his health based on his placement in
segregation during prison lockdowns. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057
(9th Cir. 2004).
To the extent that Armentero challenged the conditions of his confinement
based on a lack of exercise, the district court properly dismissed his claim because
Armentero failed to allege a substantial deprivation in his second amended
complaint. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that
“a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a substantial
deprivation” under the Eighth Amendment); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (reference to original and first amended complaints was
precluded by doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading).
Armentero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --