Case Name: Joe Raul HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer SERRANO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-27
Citations: 488 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 11-55831
Parties: Joe Raul HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer SERRANO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
Joe Raul HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer SERRANO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-55831.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 27, 2012.
Joe Raul Hernandez, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Roger A. Colvin, Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, City of Industry, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
California state prisoner Joe Raul Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Serrano because Hernandez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Serrano's use of a K-9 dog to effectuate Hernandez's arrest was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir.2007) ("In a Fourth Amendment excessive force case, defendants can still win on summary judgment if the district court concludes, after resolving all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff, that the officer's use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.