N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEVEN DWAYNE B R OW N , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANTHONY B AUDINO, Lie ute tna nt De puty She riff #173164, individua l a nd offic ia l c a pa c ity ; JOSEPH M OR

ALES, Se rge ant De puty

She riff #486791, individual c a

pa c i ty ; DYLAN B UTLER , De puty She riff #602227, individua l c a pa c i ty ; C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-56337 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-08924-FM O-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 16, 2021 **
B e fore : SILVER

M A N, C HR ISTEN, a

nd R . NELSON, C i rc u it Judge s 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Ste ve n Dwa yne B rown a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the de fe n da

nts in his pro se

c i vil rights la

wsuit a l le ging
e xc e ssive forc e and re ta l iation. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Gordon v
. C nty . of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th C ir. 2018). W e a ffirm
. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r for the de fe n da nts on thee xc e ssive forc e c la im . To pre va il on his pre tria l de ta ine e e xc e ssive forc e c la im , B rown ne e de d to
e sta blish tha t the “ forc e purpose fully

or knowingly

use d a g a inst him

wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble ” in light of the

fa c ts known to the de fe nda nts a t the tim e and the le gitim ate se c urity inte re sts of theja il. K

ingsle y v . He ndric k

son , 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). The

brie f use of pe ppe r spra

y a ga inst B rown followe d by im m e diate m e dic a l atte ntion wa s obje c tive ly re a sona b le unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s. 1 B rown wa s de signa

te d a s a high se c urity

inm ate due to his history of viole nc e . He
re pe ate dly

re fuse d m

ultipleorde rs to re turn to his c e ll, sa t down a nd bloc ke d the only e ntry and e xit to module 1700 for 15 to 20 m inute s, we nt lim

p whe n the de fe nda nts a tte m pte d to lift a

nd re turn him

to his c e ll, a

nd ignore d re pe ate d
warnings tha

t he would be pe ppe r spra y e d if he re fuse d

to re turn to his c e ll. The de fe nda nts ha d le g itim ate se c urity inte re sts in re turning B rown to his c e ll a nd

1 The inc ide nt

wa s re c orde d on vide o from two a ngle s. 2c le aring the only e ntry and e xit to the

m odule . C ontra

ry to B rown’ s c la im , the distric t c o urt prope rly

a pplie d the la

w. The re ta lia

tion c la i m s sim ila

rly fa i l be c a u se the use of pe ppe r spra y re a s ona bly a dva nc e d le gitim ate c orre c tiona l se c urity goa ls of re turning B rown to his c e ll a nd c le aring the e ntry

way to the m odule . Se e Rhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a

First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la im and re quiring proof tha

t “ the a c tion did not re a sona b ly a dva nc e a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l” ). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r for Los Ange l e s C ounty be c a use B rown did not show tha

t a ny c onstitutiona

l right wa s viola

te d. Tatum v . C

ity and C nty . of San Franc isc o , 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion whe n it de n ie d B rown’ s m otions to c o m pe l without pre

judic e to re ne wa l a fte r c onside ration of thec ross m otions for
sum m ary judgm e nt. B rown ha s not ide ntifie d wha t disc ove ry

he wa s de nie d or
e sta blishe d how thela c k of e v ide nc e pre judic e d him

at the sum

m ary judgm e nt sta ge . Nor did thedistric t a buse its disc re t ion by

de ny ing B rown’ s m otion to orde r de fe nse c ounse l to driveove r 285 m ile s to show B rown the a lre a dy -produc e d vide o of the inc ide nt. Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002)

3(holding tha

t we re vie w disc ove ry

orde rs for a

n a buse of disc re tion a

nd a ffirm unle ss the pa

rty e sta blishe s “ a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre j udic e ” ). The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion by de ny ing B rown’ s m otion for spolia tion sa nc t ions. Le on v . IDX Sy

s. C orp., 464 F.3d 951, 957-58 (9th C ir. 2006) (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re vie w). B rown did not e sta blish tha t de fe nda nts we re at fa ult or a c te d willfully

or in ba d fa ith in fa iling to pre se rve any e vide nc e or that he wa s pre

judic e d. Se eid. (re quiring proof of willfulne ss, fa ult, or ba d fa ith
and pre judic e for the distric t c ourt to e nte r judgm e nt a s a sa nc tion). B rown ha s not c om e forward with a ny fa c ts to support his c la im tha t the
m a gistra te judge wa s bia se d. Se e Tay lor v . Re ge nts of Univ. of C

al. , 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th C i r. 1993) (se tting forth the re c u sa l sta

nda rd). W e de c line to c onside r the ne w c la im a sse rte d by

B rown for the first tim e on a ppe a l. W e be r v . De p’t. of Ve te rans Affs. , 521 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

4