Cotton

MEMORANDUM *

Russell Cotton’s wife and children (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County of Santa Barbara and other named defendants (“Appellees”) in their § 1983 lawsuit arising from Cotton’s death while in the custody of the Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department (“SBSD”). The district court concluded that Appellants failed to raise any triable issue of fact as to (1) whether Cotton was unlawfully arrested, (2) whether SBSD officers used unreasonable force against Cotton, and (3) whether SBSD officers violated Cotton’s constitutional right to receive adequate medical treatment. We have jurisdiction pursuant *404 to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and although we find that Cotton’s arrest was lawful, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment exist as to the claims of excessive force and inadequate medical treatment.

The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrested Cotton. Probable cause to believe that Cotton violated the law existed when he kicked out the MHAT vehicle’s window in their presence. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (“If…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Reversing us in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court reminded us of a lesson we today ignore, “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 209, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is especially so when moving an unruly, mentally ill, pretrial detainee within a county jail who decides not to comply with jailers escorting him to a housing unit.

“The Due Process clause protects pretrial detainees from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.” Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). “[W]e have determined that the Fourth Amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitations for considering claims of excessive force during pretrial detention.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Graham the pertinent question is whether the force used “was objectively reasonable ‘in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [the officers], without…