In Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson, published January 29, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The plaintiff claimed that during the COVID-19 Pandemic, prison staff denied him and his unit yard exercise, arguing inability to carry out social distancing and contact tracing in the yard; but ordered the unit to work in an enclosed warehouse, where the defendants contend social distancing and contact tracing was avaliable. Meanwhile, inmates in other units were allowed yard exercise. The plaintiff filed a first-level grievance that he was confined to his cell for 23 to 23.5 hours a day except for when he went to work for 8 to 9 hours in a crowded warehouse. The warden denied the grievance, stating that the prison was quarantining inmates in the unit to prevent spread of disease and ordered them to work where disease control was in place. The plaintiff sued prison officials for damages, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, alleging among other claims that the denial of outdoor exercise violated the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment and guarantees of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the warden summary judgment against the 8th and 14th Amendment claims.
The 9th Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment on the 8th Amendment claim. At the time of the incident, the law clearly established an 8th Amendment right for prisoners to have outdoor exercise or otherwise meaningful opportunities for recreation. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the warden violated this clearly-established right. On the objective prong of the violation, evidence supported that the inmates had no outdoor exercise or meaningful opportunities for recreation. Walking to work and working was not a meaningful opportunity for exercise. Subjectively, a jury could find that the warden’s response to the first-level grievance showed his personal involvement and deliberate indifference. The 9th Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the 14th Amendment claim, because the rational-basis standard applied to treating the units differently, and theplaintiff had failed to show admissible evidence that ruled out every conceivable basis that might support the alleged differences in yard time between the units.
Leave a Reply