NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, No. 14-17059
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
1:09-cv-00330-AWI-SAB
v.
MATTHEW CATE, Director of Prisons; MEMORANDUM*
KEN CLARK, Warden; K. ALLISON,
Warden; T. P. WAN, Associate Warden; J.
REYNOSO, Facility Captain; ZANINI,
Appeals Coordinator; N. GRANNIS, Chief
of Inmate Appeals; W. J. SULLIVAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2016 **
Submission Vacated December 16, 2016
Resubmitted February 15, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BOULWARE,*** District
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Richard F. Boulware, United States District Judge for the
Judge.
Gregory Norwood appeals a summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against several prison officials, alleging two Eighth Amendment claims
arising from the denial of outdoor exercise during two temporary prison lockdowns.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Norwood argues that the state defendants violated clearly established law by
denying him outdoor exercise during the two lockdowns following a prison race riot.
See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 1995). A prison official is entitled
to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated a constitutional right that
was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 232 (2009). The Supreme Court does “not require a case directly on point, but
existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond
debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).
1. Norwood was deprived of outdoor exercise in response to a genuine
emergency—a violent race riot involving 28 inmates, which was followed by
continuing racial tension, threats of retribution, and several acts of violence. In 2008,
prison officials did not violate clearly established law by instituting a temporary
lockdown in response to a genuine emergency. See Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d
599, 603 (9th Cir. 1980). Nor was it clearly established “precisely how, according
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
2
to the Constitution, or when a prison facility housing problem inmates must return
to normal operations, including outside exercise,” after a genuine emergency. Noble
v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. Norwood also argues that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by deliberately releasing a Caucasian inmate affiliated with an African-
American disruptive group into the exercise yard in order to provoke a race riot. To
establish an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate must show that prison officials
unreasonably ignored a known substantial risk of serious harm to inmates’ health or
safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 844 (1994). It is undisputed
that the state defendants took precautions before introducing the inmate at issue into
the outdoor exercise yard: they investigated the potential threat, conducted
interviews, and closely observed him in the dayroom before releasing him to the
yard. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute
whether the officials unreasonably ignored a substantial risk of serious harm to
inmate health or safety. Id.
3. Norwood moved to re-open discovery over two years after it closed to
obtain additional information to oppose Defendants’ supplemental motion for
summary judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Norwood’s discovery motion. Norwood did not suggest any specific facts that
additional discovery would reveal, nor did he explain how those facts would
3
preclude summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & Cty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100
(9th Cir. 2006).
4. We have reviewed Norwood’s remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
4