N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TR AC EY B ER

NARD WASHINGTON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C . W . ESSEX; C . B ANYAS,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-16644 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-03054-JAM -DB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 31, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ARDONE, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Tra c e y B e rna rd W a shington (W a shington) a ppe a ls from
a distric t c ourt judgm e nt e nte re d in fa vor of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Dr. C ra i g W
. Esse x (Dr. Esse x) an d Dr. C arol A. B any a s (Dr. B a ny a s) following a

jury tria l. 

# F IL ED OCT 21 2021 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 Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.W a shington a sse rte d c la im s pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983 tha t Drs. Esse x a

nd B any a s (De fe nda

nt Doc tors) viola

te d his rights by

involunta

rily m e dic ating him
. W a shington a

rgue s tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d

by not a ppointing a

ne utra l e xpe rt
a fte r a l lowing theDe fe nda nt Doc tors to te stify

a s e xpe rts. 1 B e c a

use W a shington did not move for the a

ppointm e nt of a

ne utra l e xpe rt, but inste a d m o ve d for the
a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt to a s sist him , we re vie wfor pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 730 (1993). Pla i n e rror is e rror that is “

pla in,”

“ a ffe c ts substa

nt ia l rights,”an d “ se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public
re puta tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. at 732 (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). B a se d on theunique fa c ts of this c a se , we c onc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt
c om m itte d re ve rsible e rror. The distric t c ourt initially de n ie d without pre

judic e W a shington’ s re que st for a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt be c a

use W a s hington
m ista ke nly re que ste d a

ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt “ to a ssist him

at tria l,” rathe r tha

n a ne utra l e xpe rt. Ne ve rthe le ss, the distric t c o urt a ssure d the pa rtie s tha t it would

1 To the e xte nt W a shington a rgue s tha t it wa s e rror to pe rm it De fe nda nt Doc tors to te stify

a s e xpe rts, tha

t a rgum e nt is not we ll-ta

ke n . Se eRalston-Purina C o. v . Be rtie , 541 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th C i r. 1976) (holding tha t “ [de fe nda

nt’ s] inte re s t in thea c tion . . . would affe c t the we ight, not the

a dm i ssibility

of his te stim ony ” a s a

n e xpe rt witne ss). 2a

ppoint a ne utra l e xpe rt “ should thec ourt la te r de te rm ine tha

t a ne utra l e xpe rt is
ne c e ssa ry .” At tria l, the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t no e xpe rt te stim ony

wa s ne c e ssa

ry to he lp the jury

de c ide whe the r the De fe nda nt Doc tors viola

te d W a shington’ s c onstitutiona

l rights when the y

involunta

rily m e dic at e d him . R athe r, the distric t
c ourt c ha ra c te riz e d the a c tion a s a “ c re dibility c a s e ” whe re by

the jury c ould

“ he ar . . . W a shington’ s ve rsion a nd [the De fe nda

nt Doc tors’ ] ve rsion” of e v e nts. The distric t c ourt re a sone d: [I] t is a he sa id/she sa id c a se . I m e an, it’ s c le ar it’ s a c re dibility

c a se . And e xpe rts don’ t a dd a nything a nd e xpe rts c an ’ t te stify

. . . All they c an do is ta

ke what [De fe nda nt Doc tors] sa

y and re nde r an opinion, which doe sn’ t a ssist thejury in this c a se . It’ s c l e arly a c re dibility

c a se he re . . . And I’ m

not going to wa s te the jury ’ s tim e or the C ourt’ s tim e with a n e xpe rt tha

t’ s not going to a dd a

nything to the

issue s in this c a se . It’ s a ve ry sim ple , stra ightforwa

rd c a se . And I’ m

not going to try to c om plic ate it with e xpe rts tha t don’ t a d d a

nything and m ay have t o sha de ove r into le ga l opinions. . . . I’ m not going to a

l low the e xpe rts to te stify
. Having provide d the s e e x te nsive re m arks re ga rding why

e xpe rt te stim ony wa s unne c e ssa

ry , the distric t

c o urt im m e diate ly the re a fte r de signa

te d the De fe nda nt Doc tors a s e xpe rts, without revisiting its de nia l of W a shington’ s re que st for the a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt. De fe n da

nt Doc tors proc e e de d to te stify a s

3e xpe rts re ga

rding: 1) W a shington’ s m e nta l c ondition; 2) the ir re lia nc e on W a shington’ s history

of viole nc e de spite the substa ntia l pa ssa g e of tim e ; 3) why W a shington’ s a c tions c onstitute d a “ s udde n a

nd m arke d c ha

n ge ” in his m e nta l
c ondition; a

nd 4) why

the c i rc um sta

nc e s c onstitute d a

n “ e m e rge nc y ” warranting involunta ry m e dic at ion. Of c o urse , the e xpe rt te stim ony proffe re d by the De fe nda

nt Doc tors wa s unre fute d due t o the distric t c ourt’ s e arlie r de nia l of W a s hington’ s re q ue st for the
a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt. B y

a llowing the

De fe n da nt Doc tors to te stify

a s e xpe rts, the d istric t c o urt’ s unde rm ine d its prior ruling tha t no e xpe rt te stim ony

wa s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the c a se . Unde r the unique c o nflue nc e of the se e ve nts, we c onc lude tha t the distric t
c ourt pla inly

e rre d, tha

t W a shington’ s substa

ntia l rights we re a ffe c te d, a nd tha t the
e rror “ se riously

a ffe c t[e d] the fa irne ss” of the tria l
. Olano , 507 U.S. a t 732. B oth this c ourt a

nd the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt ha ve de c la re d tha t the

“ forc ible inje c tion of a

ntipsy c hotic drugs c o nstitute s a ‘ pa rtic ula rly se v e re ’ inva sion of liberty .” Be an v . Matte uc c i , 986 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tion omitte d); se ealso W

ashington v. Harpe r , 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of W a shington’ s re que st for the
a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt while a llowing the De fe n da nt Doc tors to te stify

a s
4e xpe rts, c onstitute d pla in e rror. 2 W e the re fore re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s

judgm e nt, a

nd re m and for a

ne wtria l with a

ne utra l e xpe rt a

p pointe d by the c ourt, or te stim o ny

from the De fe nda

nt Doc tors only

a s fa c t witne sse s. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D
.

2 W a shington’ s re m a ining a rgum e nts a

re without me rit. Dr. B any a s’ te stim ony wa s not he a

rsay be c a use it wa s not offe re d to e sta blish tha t the m e dic a l te c hnic a l a s sista

nt (M TA) wa s unsa fe , but to show the e ffe c t of the M T A’ s sta te m e nt on Dr. B any a s ’ a c tions. Se eUnite d State s v . Dorse y , 418 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th C ir. 2005), abrogate d on othe r grounds in Arizona v . Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 343-44 (2009). The

distric t c ourt did not err by a dm itting e vide nc e of W a shington’ s te rm of inc arc e ration be c a u s e W a shington did not obje c t an d the distric t c o urt provide d

a lim iting instruc tion. Se eBorunda v . Ric hmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1388-89 (9th C ir. 1988). Admitting e v ide nc e of W a shington’ s prior juve nile c onvic tions wa s not e rror be c a u se the e vide n c e wa s pre viously introduc e d by W a shington. Se eOhle r v . Unite d State s , 529 U.S. 753, 760 (2000). The distric t c ourt’ s instruc tions on a dm itting W a shington’ s c rim ina l c onvic t ions “ fa irly and a de quate ly

c ove re d the issue s, c orre c tly sta te d the la w, a nd we re not m isle a ding or pre j udic i a l.” Ridge w ay

v . W almart Inc , 946 F.3d 1066, 1081 (9th C i r. 2020). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d W a shington’ s m otion under Fe d. R . C iv. P. 50(b) ba se d on his fa ilure to m ake a R ule 50(a ) m otion. Se eTortu v . Las Ve gas Me t ro. Polic eDe

p’t , 556 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th C ir. 2009). 5