U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2020

Ruben Herrera v. Pam Ahlin

Ruben Herrera v. Pam Ahlin
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 14, 2020

Ruben Herrera v. Pam Ahlin

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN HERRERA, No. 19-15682 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM v. MEMORANDUM* JACOB REDDING, Department of Police Service, Defendant - Appellee PAM AHLIN; et al., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 (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, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (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.

2 19-15682

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.