
    Ernesto CENTENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David WILSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15738.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 26, 2012.
    Ernesto Centeno, Norco, CA, pro se.
    Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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 Ernesto Cen-teno appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his placement in “Contraband Surveillance Watch” (“CSW’). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Centeno’s excessive force claim because Centeno failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted maliciously or sadistically to cause harm when restraining him during his CSW confinement. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (core judicial inquiry in determining excessive physical force in violation of Eighth Amendment is whether force was applied in good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Centeno’s conditions of confinement claim because Centeno failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact demonstrating that he suffered extreme deprivation constituting an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9 (to rise to the level of a constitutional violation, conditions of confinement claims require “extreme deprivations”); see also Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (“[Ojnly those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981))).

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