N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HR ISTOPHER

KOC AR , a

singlepe rson, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF VADER , a

m unic i pa lity

and C ITY OF TOLEDO, a

m unic ipa lity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35687 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-05697-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 11, 2013 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a n d WALTER , Se nior Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de s igna tion.The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it found tha t the de c la rations a nd a ffidav its Koc ar proffe re d we re ina dm issible . The a lle ge d witne s se s to the Se p te m

b e r 8, 2007 ta sing inc ide nt did not swe ar to the e ight sta te m e nts submi tte d by Koc ar a s is re quire d by 28 U.S.C . § 1746. W

he n Koc ar’ s c ounse l re -file d the sta

te m e nts, c ounse l’ s se c re ta ry ha d sworn to the

sta t e m e nts’ a c c ura c y , but thewitne sse s still had not sworn tha t the tra n sc ripts of the ir inte rvie ws we re a c c urate . B e c a use the sta

te m e nts fa ile d to m e e t the re quire m e nts of 28 U.S.C . § 1746, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it rule d the sta te m e nts ina dm issible . Furthe r, the distric t c o urt did not err whe n it gra nte d sum m a ry judgm e nt in favor of the c itie s of Va de r and Tole do. Koc ar brings sta te la w c la im s for a ssa

ult and ba tte ry and ne glige nc e , a s we ll a s a Mone ll c la im unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Koc ar’ s a s sa

ult a nd ba tte ry c la im fa ils. Koc ar offe re d no e vide nc e tha t Offic e r Ste nnic k c a

use d his he a d injury . Inste a d , a s de fe n da nts a rgue , Koc ar ha d just be e n involve d

in a ba r fight m om e nts be fore Offic e r Ste nnic k arrive d on the sc e n e , a nd Koc ar c ould ha

ve re c e ive d his injury

from tha t inc ide nt. Furthe r, Offic e r Ste nnic k’ s use of forc e wa s re a sona ble . Give n Koc ar’ s fa ilure to c o m ply with Offic e r Ste nnic k’ s re pe ate d c om m ands, a nd Koc ar’ s a ggre s sive and m e na c ing

2a c tions, wec onc lude tha t Offic e r Ste nnic k’ s use of his Ta se r wa s not e xc e ssive . Se e Boy le s v . C ity of K e nne w ic k, 813 P.2d 178, 179 (Wa sh. C t. App. 1991). W ith re spe c t to ne glige nc e , Koc ar’ s c la im fa ils be c a

use he ha s offe re d no e vide nc e tha

t Offic e r Ste nnic k bre a c he d a ny duty owe d to him

during theinc ide nt. Se e Babc oc k

v . Mason C

nty . Fire Dist. N o. 6 , 30 P.3d 1261, 1268 (Wa s h. 2001). Fina lly , Koc ar’ s Mone l l c la im fa ils be c a

use Koc ar ha s not shown tha t a ny a lle ge d c o nstitutiona

l viola tion wa s “ c a

use d by a polic y , pra c tic e , or c ustom of the e ntity , or . . . there sult of a n orde r by

a polic y -m aking offic e r.” Tsao v . De se rt Palac e , Inc . , 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om i tte d). AFFIRM E D.

3