United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2808 ___________________________

Cody S. Howard

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Bruner, Officer, Pulaski County Jail

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: May 14, 2025 Filed: May 19, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Cody Howard appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force by a jail guard while

1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Benecia Moore, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. he was detained on a probation revocation warrant. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that the defendant jail officer’s administration of a short burst of pepper spray constituted a malicious and sadistic attempt to harm Howard under the circumstances, even if arguably superior alternatives existed. See Jackson v. Gutzmer, 866 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2017) (evidence that officer arguably erred in judgment in deciding to use force falls far short of showing there was no plausible basis for belief that force was necessary); Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d 1186, 1188 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (officers may reasonably use force in good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but not maliciously or sadistically to cause harm; courts may consider need for applying force, relationship between that need and amount of force used, threat officer reasonably perceived, any efforts used to diminish severity of forceful response, and extent of injury inflicted).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Howard’s pending motions. ______________________________

-2-