Desha M. Carter v. M. Yarborough;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DESHA M. CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. YARBOROUGH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55015
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-06502-PA-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Desha M. Carter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, Galen v.
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55015 2
County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity on Carter’s denial of outdoor exercise claim because Carter
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether it would be clear to a
reasonable officer that restricting Carter’s outdoor exercise during the prison
security lockdown violated his constitutional rights. See Norwood v. Vance, 591
F.3d 1062, 1068-70 (9th Cir. 2010) (prison officials entitled to qualified immunity
on denial of outdoor exercise claim because a reasonable officer could have
believed that restricting outdoor exercise during prison security lockdown was
constitutional), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1465 (2011).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carter’s access-to-
court claim because Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the warden knew that the prison staff was not following the directive to
provide legal materials to the prisoners with court deadlines. See Taylor v. List,
880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983;
plaintiff must show defendant’s personal involvement in alleged violations).
Carter’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --