Harvey Leonard v. M. Thompson

Ninth Circuit

Harvey Leonard v. M. Thompson

418 F. App'x 653

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2011

Docket09-17179

StatusUnpublished

This text of 418 F. App'x 653 (Harvey Leonard v. M. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harvey Leonard v. M. Thompson, 418 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Harvey Mack Leonard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (appointment of counsel); Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.1990) (security measures at trial), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leonard’s motions for appointment of counsel because Leonard failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Leonard contends that the district court should not have allowed two California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officers to guard him in the courtroom, but the district court did not abuse its discretion because the presence of security guards at Leonard’s trial was not “inherently prejudicial” and Leonard “fails to show actual prejudice.” Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 569, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (requiring a case-by-case approach to determine whether there is a constitutional violation where security guards are present at trial); see also Ainsworth v. Calderon, 138 F.3d 787, 797 (9th Cir.) (the presence of four, and occasionally six, sheriffs deputies at a criminal trial did not violate the accused’s constitutional rights), amended, 152 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.1998).

We do not consider Leonard’s remaining contentions, including his evidentiary challenges, because they are not supported by argument and Leonard failed to provide the trial transcript. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988) (“Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (concluding that the appellant’s contentions were unreviewable without the trial transcript, which the appellant was responsible for providing under Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Harvey Mack Leonard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (appointment of counsel); Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.1990) (security measures at trial), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leonard’s motions for appointment of counsel because Leonard failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Leonard contends that the district court should not have allowed two California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officers to guard him in the courtroom, but the district court did not abuse its discretion because the presence of security guards at Leonard’s trial was not “inherently prejudicial” and Leonard “fails to show actual prejudice.” Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 569, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (requiring a case-by-case approach to determine whether there is a constitutional violation where security guards are present at trial); see also Ainsworth v. Calderon, 138 F.3d 787, 797 (9th Cir.) (the presence of four, and occasionally six, sheriffs deputies at a criminal trial did not violate the accused’s constitutional rights), amended, 152 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.1998).

We do not consider Leonard’s remaining contentions, including his evidentiary challenges, because they are not supported by argument and Leonard failed to provide the trial transcript. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988) (“Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (concluding that the appellant’s contentions were unreviewable without the trial transcript, which the appellant was responsible for providing under Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F. App'x 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-leonard-v-m-thompson-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack