N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHAR I FERR EIR

A, individually

and a s be ne fic ia ry of a nd suc c e ssor in intere st to the e s tate of: de c e a s e d Za c ha ry Da ughtry , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PAUL PENZONE; C OUNTY OF M AR IC OPA; JEFFRE Y ALVAR EZ, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-16109 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01845-JAT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** C LIFTON, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Sha ri Fe rre ira

a ppe a l s following a jury

tria l in he r c ivil
c a se a ga inst M aric opa

C ounty and two of its offic ia ls. Afte r he r son, Za c ha ry Da ughtry , a pre tria l de ta ine e in a

M aric opa C ounty

ja il, wa s kille d by

his c e llm ate , she a lle ge d tha

t the de fe nda

n ts ha d de prive d him of a c o nstitutiona

l right unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a

nd we re grossly

ne glige nt unde r Ariz ona

sta t e la w. The jury found the de fe n d ants not lia ble for Da

ughtry ’ s de ath. Fe rre ira a ppe a ls se v e ra l rulings by the distric t c ourt e xc luding e vide n c e , a s we ll a s its fa i lure to gra nt he r m otion for a

m i stria l. W e a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s e vide n tia ry rulings for a

n a b use of disc re tion. Se e , e .g. , W agne r v . C

ty . of Maric opa , 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2013). A distric t c o urt a

buse s its disc re tion if its ruling is “ illogic a l, im

pla usible , or without support in infere nc e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the re c ord.” U

nite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C i r. 2009). To re ve rse on the ba sis of a n e rrone ous e vide ntia

ry ruling, we m

ust c onc lude not just tha

t the distric t c ourt
a buse d its disc re tion, but also tha t the e rror wa s pre

j udic ia l
. Se e W

agne r , 747 F.3d
a t 1052
. The distric t c ourt e x c lude d fa c tua l findings ma de by a diffe re nt judgein a
se pa ra te , longsta

nding litiga

tion a ga inst va

rious M aric opa C ounty

offic ia ls— a s we ll a s de ta ils a

b out a n e xpe rt re port submitte d in tha t c a se
— finding the m

to be
2too ge ne ra l to support Ferre ira ’ s the ory of lia bility . It a lso e xc lude d inform ation
a bout thepre vious de a t

hs of inm ate s in M aric o pa C ounty ja ils, finding the

m to be too dissim

ila r from Da ughtry ’ s c a se to be a dm issibleunde r Fe d . R . Evid. 403. 1 It
a lso sustaine d obje c tions to que stions to witne s se s a b o ut whe the r the de fe nda nts
c onduc te d inte rna l re v i e ws a fte r Da ughtry ’ s de ath, a

nd to a d m ission of a photogra ph of Da ughtry ’ s c e l l ta

ke n a fte r his de ath. Afte r c onside ring the re a sons give n by the distric t

c ourt for its rulings, we

c onc lude that the c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion. W e a lso re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for mi stria l for a

n a buse of disc re tion. U

n ite d State

s v . Se gal , 852 F.2d 1152, 1155 (9th C ir. 1988). In
c losing, de fe nda

n ts’ c ounse l m a de c om

m e nts a bout thea pproa c h of Fe rre ira ’ s a ttorne y s tha

t we re ina ppropria te , a d hom ine m , a

nd possibly

fa lse . The distric t
c ourt de c line d to gra

nt Fe rre ira ’ s m otion for a m i stria l ba se d

on the se re m arks, noting tha

t he r a ttorne y s ha d m a de sta te m e nts a bout thec onduc t of the de fe nda nts’ la wy e rs during tria l tha

t m ight ha

ve be e n sim ila

rly ina ppropria te . Tria l c ourts a

re in a “ be tte r position tha

n we to ga

uge the pre

judic ia l e ffe c t of im

prope r c om m e n ts.” Mate

y k o v . Fe l ix , 924 F.2d 824, 828 (9th C ir. 1990). Afte r re vie wing

1 On a p pe a l , Fe rre ira ha s m ove d for the pa n e l to ta ke judic i a l notic e of the fa c t of two jury

ve rdic ts in two c a se s re sulting from the inm ate s’ de aths. W e de ny the m otion. 3the re c ord, we c o nc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in so ruling. AFFIRM E D.

4