United States v. 2020-05-14 | 19-15682 | RUBEN HERRERA V. PAM AHLIN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBEN HERRERA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JACOB REDDING, Department of Police
Service,

Defendant - Appellee

PAM AHLIN; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-15682

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM

MEMORANDUM
*

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).
FILED

MAY 14 2020

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

2 19-15682
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.