Gregory McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CASEY and S. Buentiempo, Defendants-Appellees, 398 F. App'x 288

MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Gregory McKinney appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of adequate outdoor exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted

summary judgment because McKinney failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants caused the alleged denial of exercise. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir.1988) (an official is liable under

section 1983 only “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation” of which plaintiff complains) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney’s motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Com Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review). McKinney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.