Howard Cochran v. Robert Ramsey , 695 F. App'x 279 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD COCHRAN, No. 16-16217
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02538-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT RAMSEY, Police Officer at
Phoenix Police Department; MICHAEL
FEIST, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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.
2 16-16217