Court Opinion

ID: 4224129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-28 21:00:37.873708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:52.303625
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     NOV 28 2017
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATHY GLENN CLAY,                                 No. 16-56286

                   Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06599-MRW

     v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017,
individual and official capacity,

                   Defendant-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Central District of California
                    Michael R. Wilner, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                            Submitted November 15, 2017***

Before:         CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

          Kathy Glenn Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment entered

following a jury verdict in favor of defendant Papik in Clay’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
excessive force action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      Clay failed to preserve her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

because Clay did not move for judgment as a matter of law either before or after

the jury’s verdict. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th

Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support

the verdict in a civil case, a party must make two motions. First, a party must file a

pre-verdict motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Second, a party must file a

post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a motion for a

new trial, under Rule 50(b).” (citations omitted)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    16-56286