setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
How later courts described this case
- setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
- “[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL AARON WITKIN, No. 25-7530
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01211-WBS-CSK
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
M. PITTSLEY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 26, 2026**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Michael Aaron Witkin appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
Eighth Amendment claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s summary judgment and its qualified immunity
*
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).
determinations. Hughes v. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2022). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity because the sixty-day suspension of Witkin’s recreation yard
privileges, while Witkin was still able to attend educational programming and
access a dayroom, did not violate clearly established law. See Plumhoff v. Rickard,
572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014) (“[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a
clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that
any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was
violating it.”); Norbert v. City & County of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918, 929-30
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that there is no per se requirement to provide outdoor
exercise as opposed to other forms of recreation, and there is no established
constitutional minimum number of hours per week for recreation).
The district did not abuse its discretion by denying Witkin’s motion to
amend the judgment because Witkin failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief.
See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
2 25-7530