
    Sergio MORALES, as Special Administrator and as the father and Heir of the Estate of Sergio Hugo Morales-Paredes, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; Chief Forti; NORHR, Capt.; Joseph Chronister, Assistant Chief; Powell, Lt.; Rogers, Sgt.; J. Campbell, Sgt.; McCafferty, Classification Counselor; Prescilla Tenuta, P#1376, Classification Technician; Giarmo, Sgt.; Woolman, Lt.; Mote, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15746
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submission Deferred April 11, 2016 
    
    Filed December 14, 2016
    Cal J. Potter, III, Esquire, Attorney, Potter Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Hugo Morales-Paredes appeals from the judgment in favor of all defendants in this action arising out of the murder of his son, Sergio, while he was in the pretrial custody of the North Las Vegas Detention Center.

We affirm the judgment in favor of the City of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence that there was any policy or practice of placing pretrial detainees in dangerous situations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-97, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A single instance is not sufficient. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); see also Gant v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014).

When the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants, it did not have the benefit of our recent'en banc decision in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). That decision altered the analytical framework applicable to pretrial detainees’ claims. We therefore vacate the judgment in favor of the individual defendants and remand for reconsideration in light of Castro.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     