From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Kelly

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 5, 2016
No. 15-15890 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-15890

10-05-2016

NATHANIEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY, Corrections Officer, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JOYCE and MITEALL, Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01858-JAD-VCF MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Nathaniel Johnson appeals from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

In granting summary judgment on Johnson's excessive force claim, the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) which held that the appropriate standard for evaluating an excessive force claim involving a pretrial detainee is objective unreasonableness. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment of Johnson's excessive force claim and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider Johnson's due process claim because Johnson does not raise this claim on appeal.

All pending requests are denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Kelly

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 5, 2016
No. 15-15890 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016)
Case details for

Johnson v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:NATHANIEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY, Corrections Officer…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 5, 2016

Citations

No. 15-15890 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016)