Case Name: Mohammad SALAMEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CARLSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-20
Citations: 388 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: Nos. 08-56040, 08-57068
Parties: Mohammad SALAMEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CARLSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Mohammad SALAMEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CARLSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 08-56040, 08-57068.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 20, 2010.
Joyce Ellen Rosendahl, Law Offices of Joyce Ellen Rosendahl, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Katherine M. Hikida, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mohammad Salameh, a federal prisoner who is currently housed in Colorado, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a bench trial in his Bivens action alleging defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions and review for clear error its findings of fact. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's award of costs to a prevailing party. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 n. 12 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err when it made credibility determinations and concluded, based on those findings, that defendant Swanson did not use excessive force when transferring Salameh. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (the core judicial inquiry in an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim is whether the "force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Salameh's motion to re-tax costs after considering Salameh's financial situation and his ability to pay awarded costs. See Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 944-M5.
Salameh's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.