Tyrone Wallace v. Richard Tull

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TYRONE WALLACE, No. 11-55872 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05075-VAP- AGR v. RICHARD TULL, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Tyrone Wallace appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force under the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. * 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). We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wallace failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force was not applied in a good faith effort to restore prison discipline. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); see also Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (speculation as to defendant’s improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to state a triable issue of fact). AFFIRMED. 2 11-55872