Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard COCHRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert RAMSEY, Police Officer at Phoenix Police Department; Michael Feist, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16217
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Howard Cochran, Pro Se
    Clarence E. Matherson, Jr., Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Howard Cochran appeals pro se the district court’s judgment following bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and accord special deference to the district court’s credibility determinations. Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1076, 1078 n.8 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings or credibility determinations because both were “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cochran’s contentions that the district court was biased against him.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.