# Bryan Olson v. Ak State Trooper G. Ken Zabala

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 10, 2012 · 465 F. App'x 684

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/620643

## Case

- **Full name:** Bryan Mark OLSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AK State Trooper G. Ken ZABALA, Individual; Et Al., Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 10, 2012
- **Citations:** 465 F. App'x 684
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Wallace, McKeown
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/620643

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN MARK OLSON, No. 09-35925

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00035-TMB

v.
MEMORANDUM *
AK STATE TROOPER G. KEN
ZABALA, individual; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Bryan Mark Olson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Zabala violated his

constitutional rights by using excessive force when arresting him. We have

*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31

F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Zabala on the basis

of qualified immunity because any potential constitutional violation resulting from

Zabala’s use of a taser against Olson, where Olson was actively resisting arrest and

threatening officers, was not clearly established when the incident occurred in

2005. See Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 446-48, 452 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

(officers entitled to qualified immunity because the law with respect to an officer’s

use of a taser against an actively resisting suspect was not clearly established in

2006).

Olson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-35925

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/620643. Public record. Not legal advice.