Case ID: f-appx_301/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilbert Israel SERRANO, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Silvia GARCIA, Warden of Calipatria State Prison; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-56218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
    
      Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr., Folsom, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Serrano’s Eighth Amendment claim because Serrano did not create a triable issue as to whether defendants used excessive force in trying to contain a fight between prisoners. See id. at 903 (“Force does not amount to [a violation of the Eighth Amendment] if it is applied in a good faith effort to restore discipline and order and not maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Serrano’s access to the courts claims, because Serrano did not raise a triable issue as to whether defendants frustrated a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Serrano’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Serrano’s “motion of various matters” filed on July 10, 2007.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.