Howard Cochran v. Robert Ramsey
This text of 695 F. App'x 279 (Howard Cochran v. Robert Ramsey) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Howard Cochran appeals pro se the district court’s judgment following bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and accord special deference to the district court’s credibility determinations. Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1076, 1078 n.8 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings or credibility determinations because both were “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Cochran’s contentions that the district court was biased against him.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
695 F. App'x 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-cochran-v-robert-ramsey-ca9-2017.