N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HEC TOR L. RESSY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. KING C OUNTY; D. B ENEVENTE, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35584 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00760-M JP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay 14, 2013 ** B e fore : LEAVY, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . He c tor L. R e s sy

a p pe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t he wa s tre ate d roughly

an d ha ndc uffe d too tightly during his pre -he aring de te ntion for a probation viola tion. W e have 

# FIL ED MAY22 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Arpin v . Santa C lara Valle y Transp. Age nc

y , 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C i r. 2001), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R e s sy ’ s e x c e ssive forc e c la i m

be c a use R e ssy fa i le d to ra ise a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r B e ne ve nte ’ s use of forc e wa s unre a sona b l e . Se e Gibson v . C

ounty of W ashoe , N e v . , 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [T] he Fourth Am e n dm e nt se ts the ‘ a pplic a ble c o nstitutiona

l lim ita t ions’ for c onside ring c la im s of e xc e ssive forc e during pre tria l de te ntion.” (c ita tion omitte d)); LaLondev . C ounty of Riv e rside , 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th C ir. 2000) (the e xte nt of the injury inflic te d on the p la intiff is re le va

nt to the re a sona

ble ne ss inquiry). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R e s sy ’ s c rue l a nd unusua l punishm e nt c la im be c a use R e ssy fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble disputea s to whe the r B e ne ve nte m a l i c iously and sa distic a lly

use d forc e to c a

use him ha rm . Se e W ilk ins v . Gaddy , 130 S. C t. 1175, 1178 (2010) (pe r c uriam ) (e xte nt of injury is re le va nt to Eighth Am

e ndm e nt inquiry); S

immons v . N

av ajo C ounty , Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Although the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e s s C la

use , rathe r tha

n the Eighth Am e ndm e nt’ s prote c tion a ga inst c rue l a nd unusua l punishm e nt, a

pplie s to pre tria l de ta ine e s, we a pply the sa m e sta nda rds in both c a se s[.] ” (inte rna l c ita tion omitte d )).
1 2 - 3 5 5 8 4

2The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R e s sy ’ s ne glige nc e c la im

be c a use R e ssy fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble disputea s to c a

usation. Se e Folsom v . Burge r K

ing , 958 P.2d 301, 308 (W a sh. 1998) (“ In orde r to e sta b lish a c tiona ble ne glige nc e , a

pla intiff m

ust e sta blish: (1) the

e xiste nc e of a duty

owe d to the c om pla i ning pa

rty ; (2) a bre a c h of the duty ; (3) re sulting injury ; a nd (4) tha t the bre a c h wa s the proxim ate c a u se of the injury .” ); Fabrique v . C hoic e Hote ls Int’l, Inc . , 183 P.3d 1118, 1122 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2008) (e xpe rt m e dic a l te stim ony is ne c e ssa ry to e sta blish c a usation whe re the nature of the injury involve s m e d ic a l fa c t ors be y ond a

la y pe rson’ s ordina

ry unde rsta nding). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 5 8 4 3