Dalluge

MEMORANDUM **

Amel Dalluge, a California pretrial detainee at the time of the events giving rise to the instant lawsuit, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference in connection with his placement in a restraint chair. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that no reasonable jury would find that the patting or touching of Dalluge’s head by Coates was excessive use of force or that such conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation. See id. at 1197-98 (explaining that the “nature and quality of the intrusion” on a pretrial detainee’s rights is considered when evaluating an excessive force claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dalluge’s claim that use of the restraint chair violated his constitutional rights because defendants expressed legitimate security needs and Dalluge has *311 not adduced any evidence indicating an intent to punish him. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,…