Jeremy Gunderson v. Antonio Rivas-Pardo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 17-15160
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY LAWRENCE GUNDERSON, No. 17-15160 AKA Jeremy L. Gunderson, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-01131-JAS Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ANTONIO RIVAS-PARDO, named as a corrections officer at Pima County Detention Center; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Former pretrial detainee Jeremy Lawrence Gunderson appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo the district court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual

findings. Milicevic v. Fletcher Jones Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir.

2005). We affirm.

Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court committed any legal

error. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (under the

Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee must show that the “force purposely or

knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable”); Rodriguez v. County

of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 788 (9th Cir. 2018) (under the Eighth Amendment, a

prisoner must show that force was applied maliciously and sadistically for the

purpose of causing harm to demonstrate an excessive force claim).

Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in its

factual findings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on

appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to

the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence

relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d

167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to

comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

Appellant’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 32) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-15160