N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M OHSEN M OADDAB ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF OR

A N GE; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-55581 D.C . No. 8:18-c v-00006-JVS-DFM
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 Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 7, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. M ohse n M oa dda b a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following a

jury ve rdic t for the de fe nse in M o a dda b’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 la

w suit
a ga inst theC o unty

of Orange and a

c o rre c t iona l offic e r in c onne c tion with a n 

# FIL ED AUG 10 2020 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ssa

ult tha t he e xpe rie nc e d while in prote c tive c ustody . W e have jurisdic tion unde r § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onduc ting thejury tria l without M oa dda

b. Se e Pric e v . K

rame r , 200 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ Fe de ra l judge s a

re grante d broa d disc re tion in supervising trials.” ); H e rnande z v . W hiting , 881 F.2d 768, 770 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ [I] m p risonm e nt suspe nds the pla i ntiff’ s usua l right to be pe rsona lly

pre se nt at judic ia l proc e e d ings brought by him se lf or on his beha lf.” ). M oa dda b sought a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus a d te stific andum

a m e re e ight da

y s be fore tria l. And a lthough the distric t c ourt gran te d the writ, M o a dda

b’ s c ounse l subse q

ue ntly a g re e d to proc e e d

without M oa dda b upon le arning tha

t fe de ra l a uthoritie s we re una

ble to tim e l y

tra nsport his
c lie nt from

Pe nnsy lva

nia to C a lifornia . The c ourt did not err in proc e e ding to trial without M oa dda

b’ s phy sic a l pre se nc e , e spe c ia lly give n the pre se ntation of his de position te stim ony

during those

proc e e dings. Se e Holt v . Pitts , 619 F.2d 558, 561 (6th C i r. 1980) (listing a lte rnative s “ to de c ide fa irly the m e rits of a

n inm ate ’ s . . . c ivil rights ac tion,” inc luding “the pre se ntat ion of e vide nc e by m e ans of de positions” ). 2. To the e xte nt tha

t M oa dda b a ssigns e rror to the proc e e dings be low without offe ring a

ny supporting a

rgum e nt or c ita

tions to a ny portion of the

re c ord,
2we de e m those argum e nts a b a ndone d. Se e Ac osta-Hue rta v . Este lle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th C i r. 1992) (holding, in pro se a ppe a l, tha t c l a im s not supporte d by
argum e nt a

re de e m e d a

ba n d one d unle ss fa ilure to c onside r the m would re sult in
m anife s t injustic e ); se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (re quiring a p pe lla nt’ s brie f to c onta in “ a

ppe lla nt ’ s c onte ntions a

nd the re a sons for the m , with c ita t ions to the a uthoritie s a

nd pa rts of the re c ord on whic h the a ppe l la nt re l ie s” ). 3. W e furthe r de c line to c onside r M o a dda b’ s c la im s re ga

rding his trial
c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e , ra ise d for the first tim e in his reply brie f.

“ Ge ne ra lly , a

pla intiff in a c ivil c a s e ha s no right to e ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l,” se e N

i c holson v . Rushe n , 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th C ir. 1985), a nd M oa dda b points to no c onside rations tha t re b ut this pre s um

ption.

AFFIRM E D.

3