Summary
treating statements in verified opposition brief as evidence demonstrating a question of fact at summary judgment
Summary of this case from Corbin v. BaileyOpinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02091-JHN-CW. Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding.
MELVIN ANDREW JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Long Beach, CA.
For STEVE LOPEZ, P T, Defendant - Appellee: Randall Raymond Murphy, AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL (LA), Los Angeles, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Melvin Andrew Jones, a civilly committed patient at a California state hospital, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We reverse and remand. The district court granted summary judgment to Lopez on the ground that Jones offered no evidence showing that Lopez intentionally struck him. We disagree. In his verified brief opposing summary judgment, Jones stated that Lopez struck him in the mouth and that Lopez acted deliberately. The district court also failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Jones when it speculated that Lopez may have inadvertently struck Jones in the mouth. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Jones's remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and his status as a civilly committed individual, are unpersuasive.
REVERSED and REMANDED.