The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling Tuesday in *Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson*, partially reversing a district court's denial of qualified immunity to Nevada prison Warden Calvin Johnson in a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The case centers on alleged constitutional violations during COVID-19 pandemic quarantine procedures at High Desert State Prison.
State prisoner Luis Cardenas-Ornelas filed the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that prison staff violated his constitutional rights during pandemic quarantine measures. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada's summary judgment decision denying qualified immunity to Johnson and other prison officials.
Cardenas-Ornelas alleged that during the COVID-19 pandemic, staff at High Desert State Prison denied him outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. According to the complaint, prison officials simultaneously ordered him to work and permitted yard time for inmates in other units, creating what he characterized as discriminatory treatment.
The prisoner also alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, claiming that he and his unit were treated differently from other inmates without constitutional justification.
In its opinion authored by Judge Mark J. Bennett, the three-judge panel found that the district court properly denied Warden Johnson qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim. The court determined that at the time of the alleged deprivation, a prisoner's Eighth Amendment right to outdoor exercise or otherwise meaningful opportunities for recreation was clearly established law.
The opinion states that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Cardenas-Ornelas, as required at the summary judgment stage, the constitutional violation was sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would have understood that his conduct violated established law.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The doctrine requires courts to determine whether the facts alleged show that an official's conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
The case highlights ongoing legal challenges related to prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts across the country have grappled with balancing public health concerns against constitutional requirements for humane treatment of incarcerated individuals.
The Ninth Circuit's decision indicates that while prison officials may have broad discretion in implementing pandemic safety measures, they cannot completely eliminate constitutionally required recreational opportunities for inmates. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment includes a requirement that prisons provide inmates with adequate opportunities for exercise and recreation.
The appeals court panel consisted of Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Holly A. Thomas. The case was argued and submitted on Oct. 9, 2025, in Las Vegas, Nevada, before being decided on Jan. 29, 2026.
The original lawsuit named multiple defendants beyond Warden Johnson, including Harold Wickham, Charles Daniels, Gary Piccinini, Timothy Struck, Robert Owens, Jessie Brightwell, Manuel Portillo, Timothy Johnson, J. Alcock, and Julio Calderin. The appeals court's decision addresses only the qualified immunity claims for certain defendants.
District Judge Anne R. Traum presided over the lower court proceedings that led to this appeal. The case carries the docket number 24-6755 in the Ninth Circuit and originated as case number 2:21-cv-00030-ART-MDC in the District of Nevada.
The partial reversal means that some aspects of the district court's qualified immunity denial will stand, while others will be reconsidered. The opinion suggests that different constitutional claims received different treatment under the qualified immunity analysis, with the Eighth Amendment claim surviving the immunity defense while other claims may not.
This decision adds to the body of case law addressing prison conditions during public health emergencies and clarifies the scope of qualified immunity protection for prison officials implementing pandemic response measures. The ruling could influence how other courts evaluate similar claims arising from COVID-19 restrictions in correctional facilities.
The case remains active in the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. The partial reversal means that litigation will continue on some claims while others may be dismissed based on qualified immunity protection.