LAWTIS RHODEN V. STEPHEN MAYBERG, No. 11-15235 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-15235 D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01151-BLWLMB v. STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, Director of The California Dept. of Mental Health; et al., MEMORANDUM * 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
