MEMORANDUM **

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 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.