the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing requirements for failure-to-protect claim). The district court correctly granted summary judgment against Brown with respect to his excessive force claims against defendants Shodahl and Cluever. Relying in part on video evidence of this incident, the district court found that Brown failed to raise any genuine disputes of material fact. Viewing the evidence, including the video recording of the incident, in the light most favorable to Brown, he failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Shodahl and Cluever maliciously and sadistically used force against him. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 (L.Ed.2d 156 1992) (<HOLDING>); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th
holding that malicious or sadistic use of force with intent to harm violates the eighth amendment holding that under  521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied holding that under whitley a prison guard is permitted to use deadly force in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline  holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim holding that the core judicial inquiry in resolving an eighth amendment excessive force claim is whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm