Moises Ponce Alvarez v. King County

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 13, 2019
• Docket: 18-35382
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOISES E. PONCE ALVAREZ, No. 18-35382

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00721-RAJ

v. MEMORANDUM* KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation,

Defendant,

and

ADAM R. BUCHAN, in his individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Moises E. Ponce Alvarez appeals pro se from the district court’s order

* 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). denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial following

a jury verdict for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive

force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 611 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alvarez’s motion

for a new trial because there was evidence to support the jury’s verdict that

defendants’ use of force was reasonable and not excessive. See Kingsley v.

Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (describing considerations for

evaluating whether use of force was reasonable); see also Kode, 596 F.3d at 612

(“[W]here the basis of a Rule 59 ruling is that the verdict is not against the weight

of the evidence, the district court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion is virtually

unassailable. In such cases, we reverse for a clear abuse of discretion only where

there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35382