Joseph Arthur Rodriguez v. V. ELMORE, Correctional Lieutenant, Salinas Valley State Prison;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH ARTHUR RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
V. ELMORE, Correctional Lieutenant,
Salinas Valley State Prison; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16900
D.C. No. 4:05-cv-05068-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Arthur Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials subjected him to excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his
FILED
DEC 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-16900 2
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and an order
dismissing a claim. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009);
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the excessive
force claim because Rodriguez failed to raise a triable issue as to whether prison
officials “acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm”
by using pepper spray after Rodriguez and his cellmate repeatedly refused to
comply with orders to exit their cell and be handcuffed so that prison officials
could search their cell for a missing metal object. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d
898, 903-04 (9th Cir. 2002) (evidence that prison official administered second
pepper spray after coughing and gagging was heard from cell “does not lead to the
inference that the official used the pepper spray ‘maliciously and sadistically for
the very purpose of causing harm.’”) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
320-21 (1986)).
The district court also properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claim
because Rodriguez failed to allege facts supporting an inference that prison
medical officials who examined him after his pepper spray decontamination knew
of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety. See Clement, 298

-- 2 of 3 --

09-16900 3
F.3d at 904 (“‘Deliberate indifference’ is evidenced only ‘when the official knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .’”) (quoting
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
We do not consider Rodriguez’s contentions not supported by argument.
See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --