Case Name: Bryan Mark OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AK State Trooper G. Ken ZABALA, individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 465 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 09-35925
Parties: Bryan Mark OLSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AK State Trooper G. Ken ZABALA, individual; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
Bryan Mark OLSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AK State Trooper G. Ken ZABALA, individual; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-35925.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
Bryan Mark Olson, Kenai, AK, pro se.
Michael Hotchkin, Attorney General’s Office, Anchorage, AK, Frank S. Koziol, Esquire, Law Office of Frank S. Koziol, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Bryan Mark Olson appeals pro se from • the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Zabala violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force when arresting him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Zabala on the basis of qualified immunity because any potential constitutional violation resulting from Zabala's use of a taser against Olson, where Olson was actively resisting arrest and threatening officers, was not clearly established when the incident occurred in 2005. See Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 446-48, 452 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (officers entitled to qualified immunity because the law with respect to an officer's use of a taser against an actively resisting suspect was not clearly established in 2006).
Olson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.