requiring the use of force existed. However, after having made a decision to request backup, the officers inexplicably proceeded to engage Mr. Claybrook in a violent confrontation without awaiting the arrival of the uniformed officers. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the officers here were hardly involved in a high-speed pursuit or any high-pressure confrontation at the time that they decided to act, as were the officers in Lewis. See 118 S.Ct. at 1720-21. As such, Ms. daybook’s claims should be analyzed using the “deliberate indifference” standard; which is to say, her claim should be viewed in the context of whether the officers had time to make a reasoned judgment about their conduct. Id.; see Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). When viewing the officers’ actions under this
recognizing that the critical question when applying the appropriate standard of culpability under lewis is whether the circumstances allowed the state actors time to fully consider the potential consequences of their conduct holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law recognizing that the critical question is whether any present violation exists holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion