Lacey Mark Sivak v. Shannon Cluney Dana Cummings

977 F.2d 591 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lacey Mark SIVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shannon CLUNEY; Dana Cummings, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-35236. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 22, 1992. * Decided Oct. 5, 1992. Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se a summary judgment entered by the district court on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 3 Sivak presents two contentions. First, he contends that two prison officers, Cluney and Cummings, violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they used excessive force while attempting to handcuff him. Second, Sivak contends that the hearing officer at his subsequent prison disciplinary hearing denied him due process of law by refusing Sivak's…