court has refused to find a ‘genuine issue’ where the only evidence presented is ‘uncorroborated and self-serving’ testimony”) (citations omitted). In contrast, Defendants have submitted incident reports that all consistently state that Plaintiff was resisting. In addition, the facts show that Defendant Diaz sprayed Plaintiff with one shot of O.C. spray to subdue Plaintiff when he was biting C/O Bernal. (See Cobb Decl. Ex. E by Diaz at 18; See Pl.’s Compl. at 7.) The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has held that in a prison, tear gas may legitimately be used in small quantities to prevent small disturbances from becoming dangerous to other inmates or personnel. See Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir.1979); see also Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Although Plaintiff does not discuss whether
holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that bystander prisoners who were exposed to pepper spray when prison officials dispensed spray across their pod area to break up a fight were not subjected to excessive force holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force holding that otherwise acceptable use of pepper spray became excessive when arrestee was offering no further active resistance holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights