GREGORY SYLVESTER RIDEAU, Jr. v. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GREGORY SYLVESTER RIDEAU, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15924
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01709-FCD-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing his claims against certain defendants
and summarily adjudicating his remaining claim in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-15924 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v.
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and a grant of summary judgment,
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the sole claim against defendant James
related to inadequate medical care because Rideau failed to exhaust administrative
remedies as to this claim before filing suit as required under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought
with respect to prison conditions . . . until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.”); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal where prisoner fails to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit and tries to do so while case is pending).
The district court properly dismissed the claim against defendant Runnels
related to the denial of outdoor exercise during six prison lockdowns because
Rideau failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies concerning these
incidents. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006) (“proper exhaustion”
under the PLRA means that “a prisoner must complete the administrative review
process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as
a precondition to bringing suit in federal court”).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-15924 3
The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds on Rideau’s remaining claim as to the denial of outdoor
exercise during the seventh prison lockdown because, even viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to Rideau as the nonmoving party, he failed to raise a
triable issue that denying him outdoor exercise under the circumstances violated
his constitutional rights. See Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1068-70 (9th Cir.
2010) (granting qualified immunity on deliberate indifference claim because right
to outdoor exercise is not absolute but must be balanced against prison officials’
duty to keep inmates safe from each other, especially during security lockdowns to
stop violence); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1259 (9th Cir. 1982) (prison
officials’ decision to impose restrictions such as limits on inmate access to outdoor
exercise in response to emergencies involving institutional safety and security must
be given wide-ranging deference).
Rideau’s motion for leave to add new claims and parties in his complaint is
denied as untimely and beyond the scope of this appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
Rideau’s remaining contentions, including those regarding the two recent
cases cited in his “Notice of Newly Discovered Evidence,” are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --