“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN, No. 11-15235
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01151-BLW-
LMB
v.
STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, Director of MEMORANDUM *
The California Dept. of Mental Health; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding **
Submitted May 15, 2012 ***
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable B. Lynn Winmill, United States Chief Judge for the
District of Idaho, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lawtis Donald Rhoden, who is civilly committed in California as a sexually
violent predator, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment
rights by failing to provide greater access to a smoke-free outdoor exercise area
between 2006 and 2008. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a district court’s dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. Kwai Fun
Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 966 n.18 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rhoden’s action after concluding that
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the right
of civil detainees to regular smoke-free outdoor exercise was not clearly
established. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (“For a constitutional
right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a
reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15235