Peterson v. Union Pacific Railroad

Ninth Circuit

Peterson v. Union Pacific Railroad

480 F. App'x 874

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2012

Docket10-56959

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 480 F. App'x 874 (Peterson v. Union Pacific Railroad) 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

Peterson v. Union Pacific Railroad, 480 F. App'x 874 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-appellant Lewis Peterson (“Peterson”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) and Jason Zatt (“Zatt”), a Union Pacific Police Officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Peterson alleges that Zatt used excessive force while lawfully arresting him for trespassing. Allegations of excessive force are examined under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on. unreasonable seizures, as explained in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Importantly, Peterson has failed to provide medical records supporting his alleged injuries. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir.2001) (“Arpin’s claim of injury is equally unsupported as she does not provide any medical records to support her claim that she suffered injury as a result of being handcuffed.”). Without documentation of injury, his excessive-force claim fails. See id. (denying claim because plaintiff-appellant “failed to meet her burden of proof of providing specific facts to show that the force used was unreasonable or that she sustained actual injuries”).

Peterson also claims that he suffered a violation of his procedural due process *875 rights when he was incarcerated for two or three hours after his arrest. Peterson reads California Penal Code § 853.6 as creating a mandatory cite-and-release framework for misdemeanors. Section 853.6 does no such thing. In particular, § 853.6(g) allows an officer to “book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release.” By booking Peterson, who had no identification on his person, Zatt acted in accordance with § 853.6, not in contravention of it.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-appellant Lewis Peterson (“Peterson”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) and Jason Zatt (“Zatt”), a Union Pacific Police Officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Peterson alleges that Zatt used excessive force while lawfully arresting him for trespassing. Allegations of excessive force are examined under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on. unreasonable seizures, as explained in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Importantly, Peterson has failed to provide medical records supporting his alleged injuries. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir.2001) (“Arpin’s claim of injury is equally unsupported as she does not provide any medical records to support her claim that she suffered injury as a result of being handcuffed.”). Without documentation of injury, his excessive-force claim fails. See id. (denying claim because plaintiff-appellant “failed to meet her burden of proof of providing specific facts to show that the force used was unreasonable or that she sustained actual injuries”).

Peterson also claims that he suffered a violation of his procedural due process *875 rights when he was incarcerated for two or three hours after his arrest. Peterson reads California Penal Code § 853.6 as creating a mandatory cite-and-release framework for misdemeanors. Section 853.6 does no such thing. In particular, § 853.6(g) allows an officer to “book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release.” By booking Peterson, who had no identification on his person, Zatt acted in accordance with § 853.6, not in contravention of it.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F. App'x 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-union-pacific-railroad-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack