Case Name: Tomeko MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C/O PETERSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-12
Citations: 362 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 08-17451
Parties: Tomeko MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C/O PETERSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
Tomeko MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C/O PETERSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17451.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 12, 2010.
Tomeko Malone, Norco, CA, pro se.
Phillip Arthur, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tomeko Malone, 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 a prison official used excessive force against him when removing him from his prison cell. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment, To-guchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim because Malone failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Peterson's use of physical force was more than de minim-is, and whether the force was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.