Calvin Johnson, Warden v. Luis Cardenas-Ornelas

Plaintiff Luis Cardenas-Ornelas pleaded a claim alleging that restrictions on yard time during the COVID-19 pandemic deprived him of opportunities for outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit relied on its caselaw generally identifying a right to “outdoor exercise or otherwise meaningful opportunities for recreation” under the Eighth Amendment to satisfy the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity before considering the specific circumstances of CardenasOrnelas’s constitutional claim to decide only whether the alleged claim presented a viable constitutional violation that could survive summary judgment. The questions presented are: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which inverted the test for qualified immunity and considered whether a right to “outdoor exercise or otherwise meaningful recreation” is clearly established as a general matter of law before considering whether the specific circumstances of this case present a viable constitutional claim, conflicts with this Court’s repeated warnings to avoid defining clearly established law at a high level of generality. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s opinion conflicts with this Court’s controlling opinions because the record lacks evidence of an “objectively intolerable risk of serious harm” necessary to satisfy the objective and subjective criteria for proving a claim under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.