Daniel Wilson v. Bullhead City Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL RAE WILSON, No. 23-15468

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08118-DLR v.

MEMORANDUM* BULLHEAD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2024**

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Rae Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment and qualified immunity determination. Furnace

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014) (defendants sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15468