
    Darnell DUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. V. LIZAOLA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16944.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Darnell Dukes, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Jay M. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Darnell Dukes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dukes’ handcuffing claim because Dukes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” by handcuffing Dukes behind his back following an altercation. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on Dukes’s pepper spray decontamination claim because it would not have been clear to reasonable prison officials in defendants’ position that the decontamination would amount to deliberate indifference. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (an official is entitled to qualified immunity if the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Clement, 298 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, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994))).

Defendants’ motion to strike is denied as moot.

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