Ted Daniels v. O. Alvarado

Ninth Circuit

Ted Daniels v. O. Alvarado

465 F. App'x 699

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 2012

Docket10-56245

StatusUnpublished

This text of 465 F. App'x 699 (Ted Daniels v. O. Alvarado) 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

Ted Daniels v. O. Alvarado, 465 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ted Darnell Daniels, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district courts’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Alvarado and Harris because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants used physical force “maliciously and sadistically to cause him harm” rather than “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline!.]” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daniels’s motion for additional time to serve the summons and complaint on defendant Roberts because Daniels failed to show good cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511-12 (9th Cir.2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors to establish good cause).

Daniels’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and eviden-tiary issues, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ted Darnell Daniels, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district courts’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Alvarado and Harris because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants used physical force “maliciously and sadistically to cause him harm” rather than “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline!.]” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daniels’s motion for additional time to serve the summons and complaint on defendant Roberts because Daniels failed to show good cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511-12 (9th Cir.2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors to establish good cause).

Daniels’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and eviden-tiary issues, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 F. App'x 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ted-daniels-v-o-alvarado-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack