FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRAN GRANT, No. 14-15923
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02302-KJM-
KJN
v.
S. PALOMARES, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Darran Grant, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison
guard subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Furnace v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grant’s excessive
force claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Palomares used force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of
causing harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (in Eighth
Amendment excessive force claims against prison officials, “the core judicial
inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”); see also Carmen
v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2001)
(deposition testimony regarding defendant’s motive did not create a genuine
dispute of material fact where not based on personal knowledge).
Contrary to Grant’s contentions, the district court did not make improper
credibility determinations in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15923