William Garrett v. Andres Ruiz
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
William Allen Garrett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s excessive force claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, including the undisputed facts that Garrett was apprehended during the course of a night-time burglary, Garrett admitted he was armed with a knife and was attempting to evade arrest by flight, and the events happened very quickly. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (determining the reasonableness of a particular application of force requires “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” taking into account the “split-second judgments” in circumstances that are “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving”).