Sedlezky

MEMORANDUM

James Ruhallah Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants’ use of pepper spray constituted excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s claims against defendant Oddie because Harrison failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Oddie acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” by opening Harrison’s cell door for defendants Sedlezky and Atkinson to enter. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); s ee also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

However,…