Contreras-Bustillos v. County of Yellowstone

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS G. CONTRERAS-BUSTILLOS, No. 24-2383 D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00107-SPW-TJC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; Officer AIELLO; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Luis G. Contreras-Bustillos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an excessive force claim under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Fourteenth Amendment arising during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Contreras-Bustillos’s action because Contreras-Bustillos failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the officer’s use of force was objectively unreasonable. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015) (an excessive force claim requires the pretrial detainee to show that “the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable”); Bell v. Williams, 108 F.4th 809, 819 (9th Cir. 2024) (setting forth factors to consider in determining whether the use of force against a pretrial detainee was objectively unreasonable). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Contreras- Bustillos’s motions for relief from judgment because Contreras-Bustillos failed to establish a basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide 2 24-2383 Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3 24-2383