Feliz Ex Rel. Estate of Clevenger v. County of Orange

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 23 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLEY FELIZ, on behalf of the Estate of No. 14-56928
Stephen Jeffrey Clevenger and as
Guardian Ad Litem for L.P.F., a minor, D.C. No.
8:10-cv-01664-CJC-AN
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a
Governmental Entity; SANDRA
HUTCHENS, Orange County Sheriff, in
her individual and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Lesley Feliz challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment and
denial of reconsideration in her lawsuit against Orange County and its Sheriff. As
the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our
decision.1
I
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Feliz’s
Fourteenth Amendment claim. Feliz has made no showing that the County or its
officers acted with deliberate indifference to Stephen Clevenger’s mental-health
needs. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067–71 (9th Cir.
2016) (en banc). It is undisputed that, after Clevenger’s first suicide attempt, he
was placed under suicide watch and closely monitored by mental-health staff for
72 hours, before he was ultimately cleared to return to regular housing. Even after
Clevenger was moved into disciplinary isolation, jail staff checked on his safety
every half hour. Feliz has presented no relevant evidence to suggest that these
1
Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice, filed with this court on June 17,
2015; Appellees’ Motion for Judicial Notice, filed with this court on August 12,
2015; Appellant’s Request to Augment the Record, filed with this court on October
24, 2016; Appellant’s Motion to File a Supplemental Brief, filed with this court on
October 25, 2016; Appellant’s Motion to File a Supplemental Letter Brief, filed
with this court on December 2, 2016; and Appellant’s Request to Augment the
Record on Appeal, filed with this court on December 2, 2016, are DENIED.
2
measures ignored obvious and serious risks to Clevenger’s safety. See id. at 1071;
Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2010).
We do not consider Feliz’s argument that the district court should have
deferred ruling on summary judgment to allow Feliz to seek evidence supporting
her claim that the County inappropriately used disciplinary isolation to punish or
manipulate Clevenger. Feliz failed to preserve such claim at the summary
judgment stage, instead raising it for the first time in her motion for
reconsideration. See Intercont’l Travel Mktg., Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 45 F.3d 1278, 1286
(9th Cir. 1994).
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Feliz’s motion for
reconsideration. See United States v. Mark, 795 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir. 2015)
(denial of motion for reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion). Feliz did
not demonstrate how the evidence she sought to present was previously
unavailable or undiscoverable through reasonable diligence, and she failed to
explain how such evidence was even relevant to the conditions of Clevenger’s
confinement (and thus to the merits of her case). Accordingly, reconsideration was
not warranted under the applicable local rules. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-18; see also,
3
e.g., Goodstein v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 509 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming
denial of motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with local rules).
AFFIRMED.
4