Case Name: Willie D. RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and S. Alameida; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 315 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 07-16307
Parties: Willie D. RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and S. Alameida; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
Willie D. RANDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and S. Alameida; et al., Defendants.
No. 07-16307.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Willie D. Randle, Delano, CA, pro se.
Monica N. Anderson, Esq., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Willie D. Randle, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants' use of pepper spray constituted excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the defendants used the pepper spray "in a good faith effort to restore discipline and order and not maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2002); see also Caliber One Indem. Co. v. Wade Cook Fin. Carp., 491 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir.2007) ("Summary judgment is appropriate where . the undisputed evidence supports only one reasonable inference.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Randle's motions to compel discovery because Randle fails to show "that denial of discovery resulted] in actual and substantial prejudice to [him]." See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.