Gregory Norwood v. Matthew Cate
676 F. App'x 649
9th Cir.2017Background
- Gregory Norwood, a prisoner, sued state prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming two Eighth Amendment violations for denial of outdoor exercise during two temporary lockdowns after a violent race riot.
- The events followed a race riot involving 28 inmates and ongoing racial tensions, threats, and subsequent violence.
- Norwood also alleged defendants deliberately introduced a Caucasian inmate affiliated with a disruptive African-American group into the exercise yard to provoke violence.
- Defendants investigated the potential threat, interviewed and monitored the introduced inmate in the dayroom before allowing him into the yard.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Norwood’s later motion to reopen discovery (filed over two years after close) was denied.
- Norwood appealed; the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, applying qualified immunity and Eighth Amendment standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying outdoor exercise during lockdown violated clearly established law | Norwood: blanket denial violated Eighth Amendment as clearly established (cites Allen) | Officials: temporary lockdown in response to genuine emergency is permissible | Denial did not violate clearly established law given genuine emergency; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether officials violated Eighth Amendment by releasing an inmate to provoke riot | Norwood: defendants deliberately introduced risk to provoke violence | Officials: they investigated, interviewed, and observed the inmate before release | No Eighth Amendment violation; no unreasonable disregard of known substantial risk |
| Whether summary judgment was inappropriate without additional discovery | Norwood: late discovery would produce facts to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: discovery was long closed and Norwood gave no specifics about what discovery would show | District court did not abuse discretion denying re-opening discovery; Norwood failed to show what facts would preclude summary judgment |
| Whether defendants’ conduct was clearly established unconstitutional at the time | Norwood: precedent made the constitutional question sufficiently clear | Defendants: existing precedent did not place the question beyond debate | Court: precedents did not clearly establish the precise constitutional limits here; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eighth Amendment outdoor-exercise claim precedent cited by plaintiff)
- Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1980) (temporary lockdowns during genuine emergencies are permissible)
- Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (no precise rule established for when to resume normal operations after prison emergency)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (plaintiff must show existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (standards for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for reopening discovery prior to summary judgment)