N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
KE E L Y JO H NSO N, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. CO U NT Y O F SO NO M A; CAT H E RINE SPE AK S, DE PUT Y; G RE G O RY H AL S, DE P UT Y , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15276 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05811-C RB
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 7, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W AL L ACE and K O Z I NSKI , C irc uit Judge s , a n d W H A L E Y , *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
F EB 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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 ora l a

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

ble R obe rt H. W

ha l e y , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.pa ge 2

The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion in instructing thejury
re ga rding M s. Johnson’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im . “ Jury instruc tions m

ust be form ulat e d so tha

t the y fa irly and a de quate ly

c ove r the issue s pre se n te d, c orre c tly sta te the la w, a nd a re not m isle a ding.” B re w e r v . C ity of N a pa , 210 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting C human v . W

right , 76 F.3d 292, 294 (9th C ir. 1996)). The instruc tions given by Judge B re y e r e a sily

m e e t this sta

nda rd, a s the y
c le arly dire c t the jury to c o nduc t the e s se ntia l inquiry in e xc e ssive forc e c a se s: whe the r, give n a ll of the c i rc um sta nc e s known to the

offic e r, the use of forc e wa s

“ obje c tive ly

re a s ona ble .” Se eGraham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). The a bse nc e of a

n instruc tion re ga

rding the ava ila

bility of a lte rnative s to subdue M s. Johnson doe s not re nde r the instruc tions ina de quate . A distric t c ourt’ s
re fusa l to inc lude de ta ile d instruc tions a ddre ssing spe c ific fa c tors to bec onside re d is not e rror whe re the instruc tions a de quate ly dire c t the jury to c o nside r the tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s in de te rm ining whe t

he r the a pplic at ion of forc e wa s obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e . Se e Bre w e r , 210 F.3d a t 1097; s e e also Fik

e s v . C le ghorn , 47 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ This instruc tion c o m plie s with Graham by foc u sing on the totality of the c irc um sta n c e s .” (e m

pha sis in origina

l)). This is
e spe c ia l ly true in light of M s. Johnson’ s fa ilure to offe r any dire c t e vide nc e
re ga rding the ava ila

bility of a lte rnative m e thods of c o ntrol.pa ge 3

De spite M s. Johnson’ s c onte ntion tha t she wa s e n title d to the instruc tion be c a use the av a ila

bility of a lte rnative s wa s he r the ory of the c a se , it is not error to de c line to give a

“ the ory -of-the -c a se instruc t ion” whe re the re m a ining instruc tions
c ove r the propone nt’ s the ory . Bre w e r , 210 F.3d a t 1097 (quoting Unite d State s v . Law re nc e , 189 F.3d 838, 843 (9th C ir. 1999)). Theinstruc tions ga ve M s. Johnson
am ple room to a rgue he r the ory

of the c a se to the jury , a

nd othe rwise fa irly

and
a de quate ly

c ove re d the issue s pre se nte d, c orre c tly sta te d the la w , a nd we re not
m isle a ding. AFFIRM E D.