ROBERT WILLIAMS V. STEVE KEEFER, No. 16-15661 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15661 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00174-VPC v. MEMORANDUM* STEVE KEEFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Valerie P. Cooke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted April 11, 2017*** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Robert Lawrence Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oyama v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force used during his arrest was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-97 (1989) (setting forth the objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15661

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.