            HARRINGTON V. SCRIBNER

                         OPINION

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

    This case arises from a lockdown imposed on African
American inmates at a California state prison after violent
incidents involving inmates and guards. Garrick Harrington
brought suit against prison officials under the Eighth
Amendment for injuries he suffered related to shower
restrictions and under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment for the race-based classification of
the lockdown. A jury found against him on both claims.

     We consider the interplay between the Supreme Court’s
teaching in Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), that
strict scrutiny appliesshower restrictions were eased for additional groups,
including older African American inmates. The state of
emergency ended, and the prison gradually lifted the
lockdown restrictions and returned to normal programming.

    While the race-based shower restrictions were still in
place, Harrington—who was not involved in the violent
6                HARRINGTON V. SCRIBNER

altercations that led to the lockdown and was not associated
with a gang or disruptive group—requested that he be
permitted to walk to the showers wearing his government-
issued boots instead of the shower slippers, which he
described as “flimsy.” A correctional officer denied his
request, then escorted Harrington, who was handcuffed and
wearing shower slippers, to a shower on another floor, all the
while following behind without assisting him. Harrington
came upon a