Michael Gaddy v. E.B. Sherman

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Gaddy appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging exces-. sive force and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gaddy’s excessive force claim because Gaddy failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants applied force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Whatever precipitated the decision to search Gaddy’s cell, the video recording documents that Gaddy did not comply with the Defendants’ orders to exit his cell and submit to restraints. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 , 106 S.Ct. 1078 , 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-80 , 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (“when opposing…