Mohammad Salameh v. Peter Carlson ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MOHAMMAD SALAMEH,                                Nos. 08-56040
    08-57068
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    D.C. No. 2:98-cv-08493-SVW-
    v.                                             MLG
    PETER CARLSON; et al.,
    MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 29, 2010 **
    Before:        ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Mohammad Salameh, a federal prisoner who is currently housed in
    Colorado, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench trial
    in his Bivens action alleging defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for
    decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    using excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
    de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and review for clear error its findings
    of fact. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 
    348 F.3d 789
    , 793 (9th Cir. 2003).
    We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s award of costs to a
    prevailing party. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 
    335 F.3d 932
    , 944 n.12 (9th
    Cir. 2003). We affirm.
    The district court did not clearly err when it made credibility determinations
    and concluded, based on those findings, that defendant Swanson did not use
    excessive force when transferring Salameh. See Hudson v. McMillian, 
    503 U.S. 1
    ,
    7 (1992) (the core judicial inquiry in an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
    is whether the “force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
    discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Salameh’s motion
    to re-tax costs after considering Salameh’s financial situation and his ability to pay
    awarded costs. See Save Our 
    Valley, 335 F.3d at 944-45
    .
    Salameh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      08-57068
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-56040, 08-57068

Judges: Alarcón, Leavy, Graber

Filed Date: 7/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024