Case Name: Kareem BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. MAZUKA, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 04-15710
Parties: Kareem BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. MAZUKA, Jr., Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 105–106

Head Matter:
Kareem BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. MAZUKA, Jr., Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-15710.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kareem Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him while transporting him from administrative segregation to the showers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds because Brown failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' use of force to restore discipline and transport Brown from administrative segregation to the shower area was excessive. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.