Case Name: Maxine SHERARD, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward KETCHAM, as an individual, and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-24
Citations: 678 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 14-56758
Parties: Maxine SHERARD, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward KETCHAM, as an individual, and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Maxine SHERARD, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward KETCHAM, as an individual, and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56758
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed FEBRUARY 24, 2017
Maxine Sherard, Pro Se
Bonny Hsu, San Diego City Attorney’s Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maxine Sherard appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a jury verdict for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for plain error a challenge to jury instructions absent a timely objection in the district court. C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1016-19 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
A review of the trial transcripts—which are available on the district court docket— indicates that Sherard's trial counsel failed to object to the jury instructions regarding qualified immunity. Those instructions were not plainly erroneous because the instructions correctly stated the applicable legal standard. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) ("Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted."); C.B., 769 F.3d at 1016-19.
Sherard has not established that the district court committed plain error by failing to define terms such as landlord, tenant, and eviction. See C.B., 769 F.3d at 1016-19.
Sherard's claim that her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective fails because "it is well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases." United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996).
We reject Sherard's contention that her trial counsel failed to submit a witness list because counsel did in fact submit a witness list.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.