Johannes v. Hernandez

Ninth Circuit

Johannes v. Hernandez

328 F. App'x 444

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2009

DocketNo. 07-56271

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 444 (Johannes v. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johannes v. Hernandez, 328 F. App'x 444 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

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 [445]*445been 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [445]*445been 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F. App'x 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johannes-v-hernandez-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack