Case Name: Nathaniel JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY, Corrections Officer, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Joyce and Miteall, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 658 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 15-15890
Parties: Nathaniel JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY, Corrections Officer, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Joyce and Miteall, Defendants.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Nathaniel JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY, Corrections Officer, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Joyce and Miteall, Defendants.
No. 15-15890
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 05, 2016
Scott R. Daniel, Esquire, The Daniel Firm, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Nathaniel Johnson appeals from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.
In granting summary judgment on Johnson's excessive force claim, the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) which held that the appropriate standard for evaluating an excessive force claim involving a pretrial detainee is objective unreasonableness. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment of Johnson's excessive force claim and remand for further proceedings.
We do not consider Johnson's due process claim because Johnson does not raise this claim on appeal.
All pending requests are denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,