Case Name: Terrence TONYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph STUSSY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 15-16189
Parties: Terrence TONYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph STUSSY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
Terrence TONYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph STUSSY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-16189
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
Terrence Tonyan, Pro Se.
Shannon Marie Bell, Attorney, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Leslie Steven Tuskai, Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terrence Tonyan, an Arizona 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. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001). We reverse and remand.
The district court granted summary judgment on Tonyan's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim after concluding that a reasonable officer could have concluded that Tonyan's bulky clothing concealed a weapon. This finding, however, is unsupported by the record. Further, in Tonyan's verified amended complaint, Tonyan stated that he was unarmed and never threatened any officer by word or action. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Tonyan, Tonyan raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant used excessive force by striking Tonyan's bike with his patrol car while Tonyan fled the scene of a burglary. See Lai v. California, 746 F.3d 1112, 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth framework for analyzing an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.