to and from the shower” or to his job as a “critical worker” in the program office, from August 19, 2005 through March 13, 2006, he was nevertheless denied a “sufficient source” of exercise for more than 7 months, and that as a result, he suffered “headaches, muscle cramps, leg cramps,” “stress” and depression, for which he required medication. PL’s Opp’n at 16. There is no “bright-line” rule setting forth the amount of time or circumstances under which prisoners may be denied out-of-cell exercise before the deprivation is considered “sufficiently serious” to invoke Eighth Amendment protection. However, the Ninth Circuit has consistently held the “long-term” denial of outdoor exercise may violate the Eighth Amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th
holding 612 week denial sufficient to satisfy the objective component of an eighth amendment violation holding that denial of outofcell exercise for an extended period violates the eighth amendment holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages holding that the gratuitous infliction of wanton and unnecessary pain is a violation of the eighth amendment holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation