MEMORANDUM **

Jamar James Evans appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest. We have 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.

In opposition to summary judgment, Evans contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his § 1983 action because of California Government Code § 945.3. The district court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider Evans’s action. See Harding v. Galceran, 889 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1989) (California Government Code § 945.3 does not prohibit a § 1983 action).

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.