# Reed v. Bean

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 27, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11085230

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 27, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11085230

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that chemical agents may not be used as punishment, and may be used in non-dangerous quantities only in situations reasonably likely to result in injury to persons or a substantial amount of valuable property

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID L REED, No. 24-2705
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00103-RFB-NJK
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

BEAN, Associate Warden; Lt GLENN
FOWLER; ERIC ROMERO,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

JAMES DZURENDA, Director,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

*
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).
Defendants-appellants appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order

denying their motion to dismiss, on the basis of qualified immunity, David L.

Reed’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and failure-to-protect

claims arising during pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Garraway v. Ciufo, 113 F.4th 1210, 1216

(9th Cir. 2024). We review de novo. Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir.

2010). We affirm.

The district court properly denied qualified immunity because Reed alleged

facts sufficient to show that defendants-appellants violated the Fourteenth

Amendment when they participated in pepper-spraying Reed three hours after

visually verifying that he lay calmly in his bunk and posed no threat, and

defendants-appellants’ actions contravened clearly established law at the time of

the incident. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1068-71 (9th

Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth standard for pretrial detainee claims under the

Fourteenth Amendment); Dunn, 621 F.3d at 1199 (setting forth requirements for

qualified immunity to apply); Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195-96 (9th Cir.

1979) (explaining that chemical agents may not be used as punishment, and may

be used in non-dangerous quantities only in situations reasonably likely to result in

injury to persons or a substantial amount of valuable property).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 24-2705
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2705

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11085230. Public record. Not legal advice.