David Maddox v. A. Battle , 585 F. App'x 527 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID MADDOX, No. 12-15878
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01227-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. BATTLE, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
David Maddox appeals from a jury verdict against him following a trial on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not
recount it here.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I
Even assuming, without deciding, that the district court committed
instructional error by giving a de minimis force instruction, any error fails to meet
the plain error standard. When viewed as a whole, the jury instructions were not
“misleading or inadequate to guide the jury’s deliberation.” United States v.
Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, Maddox’s substantial rights
were not affected by any error in the instruction on de minimis force. He did not
demonstrate that it was more probable than not that the jury would have reached a
different verdict had it been properly instructed. See United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 62–63 (2002); Haddad v. Lockheed Calif. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1458–59
(9th Cir. 1983).
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maddox’s motions
for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Palmer v.
Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “The decision to appoint counsel is left
to the sound discretion of the district court.” Johnson v. U.S. Treas. Dep’t, 27 F.3d
415, 416 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). “[G]rants of such a motion are relatively
rare” and “appellate reversal of trial court denials is also rare.” United States v.
30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1986).
-2-
Here, the district court articulated reasonable grounds for its decision on
each of the motions for appointment. Cf. Solis v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d
946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing and remanding to the district court to “provide
an adequate explanation of its reasons such that its decision may be reviewed . . .
on appeal”).
Nor were Maddox’s Fifth Amendment due process rights violated by his
lack of counsel. He was afforded a full opportunity to adjudicate his claim in
federal court to a jury.
AFFIRMED
-3-