Hill v. Rios

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CYMEYON HILL, No. 24-6444 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:18-cv-03089-MCE-AC v. MEMORANDUM* RIOS, Officer; DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden; KATHERINE TEBROCK, Mental Health Director; WHITE, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Civil detainee Cymeyon Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nasby v. Nevada,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 79 F.4th 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2023). We reverse and remand.

Summary judgment was improper because Hill raised a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether defendants used objectively unreasonable force against

Hill. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015) (setting forth the

standard for a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment);

Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497-98 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining

that a self-serving and uncorroborated declaration can create a genuine dispute of

material fact for summary judgment when it states facts within the personal

knowledge of the declarant); Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 824 (9th Cir.

2010) (explaining that “force can be unreasonable even without . . . injuries”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 24-6444