Case ID: f-appx_529/html/0840-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Deon WADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15252.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Deon Wade, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Erica Camarena, Esquire, Fresno City Attorney’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Deon Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force in connection with his arrest for providing false information to a peace officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Wade failed to show that at the time of his arrest, the law was clearly established that a reasonable officer in defendants’ position would have known that the use of non-lethal force was unconstitutional. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiffs constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”); Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2010) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry ... is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” (emphasis, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.