eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-01

United States v. Alfredo Landeros ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 11 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No.    17-10217
Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
4:16-cr-00855-RCC-BGM-1
v.
ALFREDO ENOS LANDEROS,                            MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Landeros appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss
the indictment based on police officers’ alleged abuses after Landeros’s arrest.1 We
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
Appellant also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We
address that challenge in a concurrently-filed opinion.
“[T]he court may exercise its inherent, supervisory powers to dismiss an
indictment because of outrageous government conduct.” United States v. Restrepo,
    930 F.2d 705
    , 712 (9th Cir. 1991) That said, “[b]ecause it is a drastic step,
dismissing an indictment is a disfavored remedy,” United States v. Rogers,
    751 F.2d 1074
    , 1076 (9th Cir. 1985), appropriate only where prosecutor or law
enforcement misconduct was “patently egregious” or “flagrant.” United States v.
Jacobs,
    855 F.2d 652
    , 655 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam);
    Rogers, 751 F.2d at 1080
    .
The misconduct must also be prejudicial. United States v. Owen,
    580 F.2d 365
    , 367
(9th Cir. 1978).
Whether or not Landeros could establish that the officers’ actions constituted
unreasonable force for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action like those he cites,
see, e.g., Muehler v. Mena,
    544 U.S. 93
    , 102 (2005), the alleged abuses do not rise
to the level of egregiousness required under this circuit’s precedent to dismiss the
indictment, especially given that Landeros did not seek medical attention upon
arrival at the detention center after his arrest.
AFFIRMED as to the issue covered by this disposition.
2