Jenkins
Jenkins v. Cooke
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Edward Charles Jenkins appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. 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 on Jenkins’ excessive force claim because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the force was not applied in a good faith effort *756 to maintain or restore discipline and was instead used maliciously to cause him harm. See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 , 106 S.Ct. 1078 , 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins’ due process claim because Jenkins did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his confinement in administrative segregation was an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).