Case ID: f-appx_489/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tyrone WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard TULL, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-55872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
    Tyrone Wallace, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 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, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (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. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.