NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON SAUL SILVA, No. 21-35398

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01294-RAJ v.

MEMORANDUM* CAMERON WALKER, Sergeant; JASON EDMOND, Officer; DANIEL MOLINA, Officer; BARRETT HORN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Saul Silva appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and inadequate medical care after he was pepper sprayed during his pretrial detention. We have

*

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). jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Silva failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the use of the restraint board after the administration of pepper spray was objectively unreasonable given that Silva refused multiple offers from jail staff to decontaminate him and appeared unharmed. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (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”); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the objective deliberate indifference standard for pre-trial detainees).

Silva’s motion to strike the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

Silva’s motion for a ruling (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-35398