Case ID: f-appx_8/html/0806-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tino SORCHINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF COVINA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 99-56257.
    D.C. No. CV-92-02825-CBM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 5, 2001.
    
    Decided May 4, 2001.
    Before KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and ZAPATA, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Frank Zapata, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The City of Covina may only be liable if the wrong was committed according to municipal policy, practice or custom. See Monell v. Department of Soc. Sens., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The city presented uncontroverted evidence that police policy requires its officers to give a warning prior to using a dog. Even if the officers in this case failed to do so, the city would not be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, any errors in the jury instructions were harmless.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.