
    Gary H. BRUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter FARBER-SZEKRENYI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17818.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Gary H. Brush, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    
      Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Megan R. O’Carroll, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary H. Brush, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging excessive force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as a sanction, Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 686, 638 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brush’s action as a sanction after reviewing the evidence before it and concluding that Brush submitted fraudulent affidavits concerning alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir.2002) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 allows sanctions if a filing is either legally frivolous or factually misleading); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir.1995) (a district court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an action as a sanction when a party willfully deceives the court).

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