Case Name: Gerald JOHANNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HERNANDEZ; Stephanie French, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-01
Citations: 328 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 07-56271
Parties: Gerald JOHANNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HERNANDEZ; Stephanie French, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Gerald JOHANNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HERNANDEZ; Stephanie French, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-56271.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 1, 2009.
Gerald Johannes, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Randall R. Murphy, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gerald Johannes, who was civilly committed, appeals pro se from the distinct court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two officials at Atas-cadero State Hospital. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2007), and we vacate and remand.
The district court's order stated summarily that Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, but gave no indication as to which of the various grounds it relied upon. For instance, it is not clear if the district court concluded that Defendant Hernandez's conduct was "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, in light of Hernandez being reprimanded after the incident. It is also not clear if the district court applied the "atypical and significant hardship" standard of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), in this context of civil confinement. Finally, both parties rely on Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2007), which has since been vacated by the Supreme Court. See Hunter v. Hydrick, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2431, 174 L.Ed.2d 226 (2009). For all these reasons, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further consideration.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.