NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAMIEN T. DENNIS, No. 13-15698
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00591-RCJ-
WGC
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM*
OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Damien T. Dennis appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among
other claims, excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir.
2013). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The district court granted summary judgment on Dennis’s excessive force
claim, concluding that Dennis failed to raise any genuine disputes of material fact.
However, Dennis stated in his declaration that defendants repeatedly slammed his
face against a wall, took him to the ground, and repeatedly punched the right side
of his face, even though he complied with defendants’ orders, was handcuffed, and
did not resist removal from his cell. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Dennis, Dennis raised a triable dispute as to whether defendants
maliciously and sadistically used force against him. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (holding that “the core judicial inquiry” in resolving an Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim is “whether force was applied in a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm” ); Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1026 (a court reviewing a summary judgment
motion must “assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party”);
see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38 (2010) (“An inmate who is gratuitously
beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim
merely because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.”).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to this claim.
2 13-15698
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 13-15698