Kurt Butler v. Leonard Anakalea

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KURT BUTLER, I, No. 10-17122
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00203-HG-BMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LEONARD ANAKALEA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Kurt Butler, I, a former pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference, excessive force, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lolli v. County of
Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Butler’s excessive
force claim against defendant Manu because Butler failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Manu’s use of force against him was not
“objectively reasonable.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415 (discussing the legal standard
applicable to excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees).
However, the district court improperly granted summary judgment on
Butler’s remaining claims.
As to Butler’s excessive force claim against defendant Ferreira, Butler stated
in his declaration that Ferreira slammed and pressed him against a concrete wall
while he was handcuffed and not actively resisting. These facts create a triable
dispute as to whether Ferreira’s use of force was objectively reasonable. See Lolli,
351 F.3d at 415.
As to Butler’s deliberate indifference claim against defendant Lopez, Butler
stated in his declaration that he passed a kidney stone while in detention, and the
episode continued for about four hours after he asked staff for help. Lopez stated
in her declaration that she was aware that Butler complained of a kidney stone, and
2 10-17122
Butler’s medical records show that although Butler had a history of kidney stones
and requested pain medication, Lopez provided him no pain medication. These
facts create a triable dispute as to whether Lopez was deliberately indifferent to
Butler’s kidney stone and related pain. See id. at 419 (standard for evaluating a
claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs brought by a pretrial detainee).
As to Butler’s conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Anakalea
and Lopez, the district court applied the wrong standard for determining the
constitutionality of these conditions. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d
1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth the standard for determining whether
conditions of pretrial detention are constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
and explaining that this standard “differs significantly” from the standard applied
to conditions of confinement claims brought by convicted prisoners under the
Eighth Amendment).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the
excessive force claim against Ferreira and the deliberate indifference claim against
Lopez. We also reverse and remand on the conditions-of-confinement claim
against Anakalea and Lopez for the district court to apply the correct standard in
the first instance.
Butler’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
3 10-17122
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
4 10-17122