Brown v. Mazuka

Ninth Circuit

Brown v. Mazuka

136 F. App'x 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2005

DocketNo. 04-15710

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F. App'x 105 (Brown v. Mazuka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Mazuka, 136 F. App'x 105 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Kareem Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s [106]*106summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him while transporting him from administrative segregation to the showers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds because Brown failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ use of force to restore discipline and transport Brown from administrative segregation to the shower area was excessive. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Kareem Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s [106]*106summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him while transporting him from administrative segregation to the showers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds because Brown failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ use of force to restore discipline and transport Brown from administrative segregation to the shower area was excessive. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F. App'x 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-mazuka-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack