Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Malik AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley BAKER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-15400.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2015.
    Malik Austin, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Joseph Isaac Vigil, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Malik Austin appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the use of excessive force during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Austin’s excessive force claim. However, Austin stated in his declaration that while he was fully shackled and in his cell, Baker drove Austin from a standing position face first into the ground, resulting in significant injury to Austin’s forehead. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Austin, he raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Baker’s use of force was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. See Kingsley v. Hendrick-son, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (discussing the legal standard applicable to excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Baker’s motion to submit physical exhibits, filed on November 3, 2014, is granted.

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