Jack Cantrell v. Joseph Arpaio

MEMORANDUM

Jack Cantrell, a former Arizona pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant, to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and its dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cantrell’s excessive force claim against Defendant Burke because Cantrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Burke’s actions of handcuffing Cantrell and raising his arms were objectively unreasonable in light of the circumstances. See Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that for a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claims, the question is whether the defendant’s actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts…