HERRERA v. Pam Ahlin; et al., Defendants. (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Civil detainee Ruben Herrera appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Herrera’s excessive force claim because Herrera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were objectively unreasonable in using force against him during an incident where Herrera refused for hours to come down from a basketball pole. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 320-22, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (concluding that, similar to pretrial detainees, an involuntarily committed patient is entitled to substantive due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment); Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (to show excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee must show that the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable”).

Herrera’s motion requesting that additional evidence be released in support of his appeal (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED.