Robert Garber v. Mohammadi

Ninth Circuit

Robert Garber v. Mohammadi

714 F. App'x 749

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2018

Docket14-56518

StatusUnpublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 749 (Robert Garber v. Mohammadi) 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

Robert Garber v. Mohammadi, 714 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Garber appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging police use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on Gar-ber’s excessive force claim against Officer Hamed Mohammadi. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). The evidence, including a police videotape, showed that officers’ use of force in detaining and handcuffing and hobbling Garber and transporting him to a psychiatric hospital was objectively reasonable under the circumstances because his conduct posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers, the public, and himself, and there, was no evidence, such as medical records or photographs, of injury to Garber. See Zion v. Cty. of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time for Garber’s cross-examination of Officer Mohammadi, See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 397 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police videotape. See Cheffins v. Stewart, 825 F.3d 588, 596 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion and showing of prejudice). Finally, Garber has established no prejudicial error in the conduct of discovery. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Garber appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging police use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on Gar-ber’s excessive force claim against Officer Hamed Mohammadi. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). The evidence, including a police videotape, showed that officers’ use of force in detaining and handcuffing and hobbling Garber and transporting him to a psychiatric hospital was objectively reasonable under the circumstances because his conduct posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers, the public, and himself, and there, was no evidence, such as medical records or photographs, of injury to Garber. See Zion v. Cty. of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time for Garber’s cross-examination of Officer Mohammadi, See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 397 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police videotape. See Cheffins v. Stewart, 825 F.3d 588, 596 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion and showing of prejudice). Finally, Garber has established no prejudicial error in the conduct of discovery. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

342 F.3d 1080 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Kristi W. Dorn, Personal Representative Est Larry M. Dorn v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company

397 F.3d 1183 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Simon Cheffins v. Michael Stewart

825 F.3d 588 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Anthony Reed v. Doug Lieurance

863 F.3d 1196 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Zion v. County of Orange

874 F.3d 1072 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)