Court Opinion

ID: 9955591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:01:34.653759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:09.106756
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYCE JACKSON,                                  No. 22-35771

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00427-YY

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CATHY GORTON; GREG MANSOFF;
MULTNOMAH COUNTY,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Oregon
                  Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Washington state prisoner Bryce Jackson appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force

and other constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on

Jackson’s excessive force claim because Jackson failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether defendants used excessive force in restraining

Jackson after Jackson refused to comply with orders to be handcuffed and removed

from his cell. See Hughes v. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th 1211, 1221 (9th Cir. 2022)

(listing factors used to determine whether “the use of force was malicious and

sadistic” in Eighth Amendment excessive force cases).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                      22-35771