United States v. 2020-11-25 | 19-56296 | PHILLIP MARTINEZ V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
PRISONS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

No. 19-56296

D.C. No.
5:15-cv-02160-TJH-AFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 23, 2020
**

Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Phillip Martinez, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

*
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).
FILED

NOV 25 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
alleging violations of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179,
1183 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Fifth Amendment claim
concerning his placement in a maximum-security prison because inmates lack a
protected liberty interest in their housing or classification status. See Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (holding that an inmate lacked due process
protections in his transfer between prisons, resulting in a reclassification to
maximum security, because the transfer was “within the normal limits or range of
custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose”); see also Moody
v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (stating that Meachum’s holding applies to
“prison classification . . . in the federal system”).
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim
alleging inadequate exercise, first, because a Bivens remedy is not available for
such a claim. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017) (urging courts to
use caution before extending the Bivens remedy into new contexts and requiring a
“special factors” analysis before doing so). Second, the district court properly
dismissed the claim because Martinez failed to allege medical effects as a result of
any temporary denial of exercise. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.
1997) (“a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a

3
substantial deprivation,” a requirement of an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-
confinement claim).
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim
alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because Martinez failed
to allege facts showing that he had a serious medical need or that any defendant
was deliberately indifferent that need. See Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081
(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they
are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. A medical need is
serious if failure to treat it will result in significant injury or the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain.” (citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.