Tyrone Wallace v. RICHARD TULL, Correctional Officer

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TYRONE WALLACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD TULL, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-55872
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05075-VAP-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tyrone Wallace appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive
force under the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291.
FILED
JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-55872 2
We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wallace
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force was not
applied in a good faith effort to restore prison discipline. See Whitley v. Albers,
475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); see also Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194
(9th Cir. 2003) (speculation as to defendant’s improper motive does not rise to the
level of evidence sufficient to state a triable issue of fact).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --