Banks

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner John J. Banks appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a prison guard in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the guard violated the Eighth Amendment by spraying Banks with a chemical agent for not following orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Banks’ excessive force claim because Banks failed to raise a genuine issue for trial because he presented no facts to support that being sprayed six or seven times for refusing orders to cuff up constituted excessive force. The undisputed evidence shows that McDonald warned Banks that refusing to cooperate would result in his being sprayed and that McDonald stopped spraying Banks once he complied. See Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Banks’ deliberate indifference claim alleging that his cell was not sufficiently decontaminated and cleaned, and that he did not receive a shower for 48 hours after being sprayed. McDonald submitted evidence…