N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM ALLEN GAR RETT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ANDRES R

UIZ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55635 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-02540-IEGWVG M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Irm a E. Gonz a le z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. W illia m Alle n Ga rre tt a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t de fe nda nts viola te d his c onstitutiona

l rights. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo, Billington v. Smith , 292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 7 2014 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ga

rre tt’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im

be c a use Ga rre tt fa i le d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts’ a c tions we re obje c tive ly unre a sona ble unde r the c irc um s ta nc e s , inc luding theundispute d fa c ts tha t Ga rre tt wa s a

ppre h e nde d during the c ourse of a night-time burgla ry , Ga rre tt a dm itte d he wa s arm e d with a knife and wa s atte m

pting to eva de a

rre st by flight, a nd the e ve nts ha

ppe ne d ve ry

quic kly . Se eGraham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (de te rm ining the re a s ona ble ne s s of a

pa rtic ula r a pplic ation of forc e re quire s “ c a re ful atte ntion to the fa c t s a n d c irc um sta

nc e s of e a c h pa

rtic u la r c a se ,” ta king into ac c ount the

“ split-se c ond judgme nts” in c irc um sta nc e s tha t a re “ te n se , unc e rta in, a

nd ra pidly e volving” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ga

rre tt’ s c la im that de fe n da nts viola te d his privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim ination be c a use Ga rre tt se e k s to re -litiga

te issue s pre viously

de c ide d during his sta

te c rim ina l proc e e ding. Se eAy e rs v . C

ity of Ric hmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th C ir. 1990) (a p ply ing C a lifornia issuepre c l usion la

w to pre ve nt pla intiff’ s re -litiga tion of a suppre ssion de te rm i nation in a subse q u e nt § 1983 a c tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Ga

rre tt’ s disc ove ry m otions be c a

use Ga rre tt fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t he suffe re d

any pre judic e . Se e

1 3 - 5 5 6 3 5 2Halle t t v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (providing sta nda rd of re vie w and noting the

tria l c o urt’ s broa d disc re tion in disc ove ry m atte rs). W e re je c t Ga rre tt’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning a lle ge d due proc e ss viola tions and the distric t c ourt’ s a lle ge d bia s a nd inc o rre c t

a p p lic ation of thesum

m ary judgm e nt sta

nda rd be c a use the y are unsupporte d by

the re c ord. De fe nda nts’ m o tion to tra

nsm it e vide nc e , file d on Se pte m be r 16, 2013, is de nie d. Garre tt’ s pe nding re que sts, file d on M a y 14, 2014, June

30, 2014, a

nd Se pte m be r 12, 2014, a

re de nie d . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 6 3 5 3