N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. AR ON W O LFE; SHANNON, Sr. Dep.; M IC HAEL SM ITH, De p.; C HR ISTINA M AR TINEZ, De p.; ALB IZURES, De p.; M IGUEL M EJIA, Sgt.; ROB ER T OC HOA, De p.; DOYLE R . C AM PB ELL; LOS ANGELES C OUNTY SHERIFFS DEPAR TM ENT; C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; JOHN L. SC OTT; DENNIS A. C ONTE; JOHN VANDER HOR C K ; DENNIS H. B UR

NS; KENNETH J. B R AZILE; LEE C . M C C OW N; LEE B AC A, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56438 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-03190-R SW LR Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld S.W . Le w, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 4, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED NOV 18 2015 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.B e fore : W . FLETC HER and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s a nd C HR ISTENSEN, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. In 2007, John Young brought a c i vil c a se a ga inst de fe nda nts W olfe , Sm ith, M artine z , a

nd Oc hoa for m a lic ious prose c ution a nd e xc e ssive use of forc e . The distric t c o urt gra

nte d de fe nda

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt on Young’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im . A jury late r he ard Young’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im , but found for thede fe nda

nts. Young a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt orde r. He a lso c la im s tha

t the c ourt im

prope rly instruc te d the jury re g arding his
e xc e ssive forc e c la im . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd re vie w de
nov o the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd its jury

instruc tion. W e re ve rse an d re m and on both grounds. The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Young’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im . It e rre d in finding tha t, be c a use Young wa s a lre a dy

in
c ustody for c a se LA045506, hewa s not deprive d of a libe rty inte re st whe n he wa s he ld pe nding his prose c ution in c a se B A268358. Young wa s still in custody whe n, on Se pte m

be r 14, 2005, the

Los Ange l e s C ounty

Supe rior C ourt de te rm ine d tha t his “ c ustody

c re dits e x c e e d [e d] the sta te prison se nte nc e im

pose d” for his burgla

ry c onvic tion in c a se LA045506. This e vide n c e is suffic ie nt to de m o nstra te tha t

** The Honora

ble Da na L. C hriste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.Young se rve d m o re da y s tha n he would ha

ve ha d he not be e n prose c ute d for his M ay 15, 2005, alte rc ation with de fe nda nts in c a se B A268358. W e the re fore re ve rse the d istric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt orde r and re m and to tha t c ourt to a ddre ss, in the first insta

nc e , the re m a ining que stions ne c e ssa ry to e va luat e Young’ s m a lic ious prose c ution c la im
. W e a lso re m and this c a se to thedistric t c ourt for a ne w tria l on Young’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im . The distric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tion re quire d Young to prove that the de fe n da

nts a c te d m a lic iously

and sa distic a lly

for the purpose of c a

u sing ha rm . As the Supre m e C o urt la te r c la rifie d in K

ingsle y v . He ndric k

son , 135 S. C t. 2466 (2015), howeve r, the a ppropria te sta nda rd for e va luating theuse of e x c e ssive forc e a ga inst a

post-a rra ignm e nt, pre -tria l prisone r like Young is obje c tive
unre a s ona

ble ne ss. Give n the nature of the e vide nc e , a ppe lle e s c annot show tha

t this e rror wa s m ore like ly tha n not ha rm le s s. RE V E RSE D and RE M A NDE D.