William Garrett v. Andres Ruiz ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, No. 13-55635
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-
WVG
v.
ANDRES RUIZ; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William Allen Garrett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his
constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s
excessive force claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the
circumstances, including the undisputed facts that Garrett was apprehended during
the course of a night-time burglary, Garrett admitted he was armed with a knife
and was attempting to evade arrest by flight, and the events happened very quickly.
See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (determining the
reasonableness of a particular application of force requires “careful attention to the
facts and circumstances of each particular case,” taking into account the
“split-second judgments” in circumstances that are “tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s claim
that defendants violated his privilege against self-incrimination because Garrett
seeks to re-litigate issues previously decided during his state criminal proceeding.
See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying
California issue preclusion law to prevent plaintiff’s re-litigation of a suppression
determination in a subsequent § 1983 action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garrett’s discovery
motions because Garrett failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice. See
2 13-55635
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review
and noting the trial court’s broad discretion in discovery matters).
We reject Garrett’s contentions concerning alleged due process violations
and the district court’s alleged bias and incorrect application of the summary
judgment standard because they are unsupported by the record.
Defendants’ motion to transmit evidence, filed on September 16, 2013, is
denied.
Garrett’s pending requests, filed on May 14, 2014, June 30, 2014, and
September 12, 2014, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55635