Ramon Saul Silva v. CAMERON WALKER, Sergeant; JASON EDMOND, Officer; DANIEL MOLINA, Officer; BARRETT HORN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON SAUL SILVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAMERON WALKER, Sergeant; JASON
EDMOND, Officer; DANIEL MOLINA,
Officer; BARRETT HORN,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35398
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01294-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35398
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 of 2 --