Cash Ferguson-Cassidy v. City of Los Angeles
705 F. App'x 611
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cash Jerome Ferguson-Cassidy sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Officer Jacob Maynard shot him; the district court entered judgment for defendants and Ferguson-Cassidy appealed.
- At trial, the jury received instructions on excessive force and the plaintiff’s burden of proof; Ferguson-Cassidy did not object to those instructions at trial.
- The district court excluded a Board of Police Commissioners’ report favorable to Ferguson-Cassidy, citing risk of jury confusion; it also excluded two other reports with contrary conclusions.
- The jury found in favor of the officers; Ferguson-Cassidy challenged the verdict as unsupported because Maynard’s use of force was allegedly objectively unreasonable.
- Ferguson-Cassidy moved for a new trial and for leave to amend his complaint close to trial to add defendants and claims; both motions were denied by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions on excessive force and burden of proof | Instructions were erroneous and prejudicial | Instructions were proper statements of law and within court's discretion | No plain error; instructions were correct and not clearly erroneous |
| Exclusion of Board of Police Commissioners’ report | Report was admissible and relevant to Maynard’s use of force | Report would confuse jury and distract from trial evidence; other reports excluded too | No abuse of discretion in exclusion; trial counsel could still introduce relevant evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: excessive force (objective reasonableness) | Maynard’s use of force was unreasonable; verdict unsupported | A reasonable jury could credit Maynard and find force objectively reasonable given threat | Verdict supported by substantial evidence; jury could reasonably find force justified |
| Motion for new trial and motion to amend complaint | New trial warranted and late amendment should be allowed | Verdict not against clear weight of evidence; amendment was untimely and prejudicial | Denials not an abuse of discretion; no clear weight-of-evidence problem and amendment properly denied for undue delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. County of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review for unobjected-to jury instructions)
- Mockler v. Multnomah County, 140 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court latitude in tailoring jury instructions)
- Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for excluding evidence)
- Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified School District, 251 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) (verdict upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Geston, 299 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2002) (jury’s role in resolving testimonial inconsistencies)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial denials)
- Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) (grounds for granting a new trial)
- Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for denying leave to amend for undue delay)