Darran Grant v. S. PALOMARES, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRAN GRANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. PALOMARES, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15923
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02302-KJM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Darran Grant, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison
guard subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Furnace v.
FILED
MAY 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grant’s excessive
force claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Palomares used force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of
causing harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (in Eighth
Amendment excessive force claims against prison officials, “the core judicial
inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”); see also Carmen
v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2001)
(deposition testimony regarding defendant’s motive did not create a genuine
dispute of material fact where not based on personal knowledge).
Contrary to Grant’s contentions, the district court did not make improper
credibility determinations in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
14-15923 2

-- 2 of 2 --