683 Fed.Appx. 604 (9th Cir. 2017), 15-16113, Newman v. Show Low Police Department
|Citation:||683 Fed.Appx. 604|
|Party Name:||JOE NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOW LOW POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||JOE NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, St. Johns, AZ. For SHOW LOW POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE WILLIAMS, SPEARS, Officer, ROBY, Officer, FECHTELKOTTER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees: Larry Jay Crown, Esquire, Attorney, Elan Shai Mizrahi, Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, Scottsdale, AZ.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 20, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted March 8, 2017. [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 3:13-cv-08005-JAT. James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding.
Newman v. Show Low Police Dep't, (D. Ariz., May 20, 2015)
JOE NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, St. Johns, AZ.
For SHOW LOW POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE WILLIAMS, SPEARS, Officer, ROBY, Officer, FECHTELKOTTER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees: Larry Jay Crown, Esquire, Attorney, Elan Shai Mizrahi, Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, Scottsdale, AZ.
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Joe Newman appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, in light of the video recording of the incident from Officer Williams' patrol car, no reasonable jury could credit Newman's account of the arrest and find that defendants used an unreasonable amount of force. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving party's version of the incident to the extent that " no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment" ); Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth factors for determining whether excessive force was used in arrest).
The district court did not abuse its...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP