Case ID: f-appx_676/html/0711-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lucious WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy COSIO, No 495876, in individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-56535
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 26, 2017
    Lucious Wilson, Pro Se
    Elise Hur, Attorney, Amber A. Logan, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lucious Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s use of less-lethal force to disarm Wilson and effectuate his arrest violated Wilson’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Lal v. California, 746 F.3d 1112, 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth framework for analyzing an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment); see also Glenn, 673 F.3d at 871-72 (explaining circumstances under which a bean bag gun, which is a “ ‘less-lethal’ weapon,” is permissible).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wilson’s motion for default judgment because the clerk never entered a default. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors to consider before entering default judgment).

To the extent that Wilson’s request, filed on June 3,2016, seeks entry of default, the request is denied.

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