Brown v. Mazuka

Full title: Kareem BROWN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. R. MAZUKA, Jr., Defendant--Appellee.

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 22, 2005

136 F. App'x 105 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

136 Fed.Appx. 105 (9th Cir. 2005) Kareem BROWN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. R. MAZUKA, Jr., Defendant--Appellee. No. 04-15710. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 22, 2005

Submitted June 14, 2005. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert E. Coyle, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-05832-REC/DLB.

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Kareem Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's

Page 106.

summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him while transporting him from administrative segregation to the showers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds because Brown failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' use of force to restore discipline and transport Brown from administrative segregation to the shower area was excessive. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

AFFIRMED.