Case Name: James David KARNATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracy DANIELS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-28
Citations: 554 F. App'x 556
Docket Number: No. 12-35089
Parties: James David KARNATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracy DANIELS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 556–556

Head Matter:
James David KARNATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracy DANIELS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-35089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 28, 2014.
James David Karnath, pro se.
Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN and PAEZ, 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
Washington state prisoner James David Karnath 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th, Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Karnath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant maliciously and sadistically used force against him for the very purpose of causing him harm while escorting him to protective custody against his wishes. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (setting forth elements of excessive force claim).
We do not address issued raised by Kar-nath for the first time on appeal regarding alleged repeated injuries to his hands and wrists from the use of restraints and unspecified unconstitutional conditions of confinement and torture. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Karnath's contentions regarding unanswered admissions that allegedly resulted in defendant "defaulting the case to Plaintiff," and "papers on sovereignty" which go to "the issue of Jurisdiction," are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.