Tony Hill v. Daniel Moreno
692 F. App'x 889
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tony Lee Hill, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force during his arrest and a conspiracy to deny him a fair criminal trial.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Hill leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and denied appointment of counsel.
- Hill appealed the district court's summary judgment and other procedural rulings to the Ninth Circuit; the panel heard the case on the briefs without oral argument.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and reviewed denials of leave to amend and appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion.
- The court considered whether Hill raised genuine disputes of material fact as to excessive force and personal participation, whether conspiracy claims impermissibly attacked his conviction, and whether amendment or counsel appointment would be appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force claim | Hill contended Moreno used excessive force during arrest | Defendants argued no excessive force and no genuine factual dispute | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants; Hill failed to raise a triable fact that force was excessive or that others participated |
| Personal participation by other defendants | Hill argued other officers participated in unlawful arrest | Defendants contended no evidence of others’ personal participation | Court held Hill did not show personal participation required for § 1983 liability |
| Conspiracy to deny fair trial | Hill alleged a conspiracy that would have invalidated his conviction | Defendants argued such claims are barred unless conviction invalidated | Dismissed conspiracy claims under Heck because success would imply invalidity of conviction |
| Leave to amend and appointment of counsel | Hill sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and counsel | Defendants opposed; court found amendment futile and no exceptional circumstances for counsel | Denials affirmed: amendment would be futile and Hill failed to show exceptional circumstances for appointed counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 1983 summary judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force standard during arrest)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (personal participation required for § 1983 liability)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend; futility standard)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s broad discretion after prior leave to amend)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard and exceptional-circumstances requirement for appointment of counsel)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate forfeiture of issues not raised distinctly in opening brief)