What is the current state of the law on the right to exercise outdoors?

The fact that this case falls between two precedents indicates that at the time of the injury of which plaintiff complains, the decisional law had not "clearly established" the right to outdoor exercise on these facts. This court previously has given prison officials some leeway in assessing when less critical needs may be temporarily denied in the interests of prison security or inmate safety. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1259. ² In view of the fine factual distinctions drawn by our decisional law on this issue, it cannot be said the law of the circuit "clearly established" a right to exercise under these circumstances. Measured objectively, it was not apparent that appellees' actions amounted to an Eighth Amendment violation.