Moord
Moord v. Konkel
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Terrance Kent Moord, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment entered following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with an altercation with prison officials. Moord does not appeal the jury verdict that Officers Konkel and Carson did not use excessive force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Officers Stovall and Tapia on grounds of qualified immunity. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that a constitutional violation may have occurred when Stovall and Tapia shot Moord during the altercation with other prison officials. See Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir.2003). Contrary to Moord’s contention, the district court properly determined that, under the second prong of Saucier, a reasonable officer in them position could have believed that shooting Moord was lawful and necessary to restore order. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001);…