Court Opinion

ID: 9905983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:01:06.671094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:02.801657
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHARI CANE,                                     No.    22-35936

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00032-TJC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COREY O'NEILL, in his official and
individual capacities; STEVE KUNNATH,
in his official and individual capacities;
JOHN DOE, in his official and individual
capacities; CITY OF LIVINGSTON,
Montana; JAY PORTEEN, in his official and
individual capacities,

                Defendants-Appellees.

SHARI CANE,                                     No.    22-35994

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00032-TJC

 v.

COREY O'NEILL, in his official and
individual capacities,

                Defendant-Appellant,

and

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STEVE KUNNATH, in his official and
individual capacities; JOHN DOE, in his
official and individual capacities; CITY OF
LIVINGSTON, Montana; JAY PORTEEN,
in his official and individual capacities,

               Defendants.

SHARI CANE,                                   No.   22-35995

               Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00032-TJC

 v.

CITY OF LIVINGSTON, Montana,

               Defendant-Appellant,

and

COREY O'NEILL, in his official and
individual capacities; STEVE KUNNATH,
in his official and individual capacities;
JOHN DOE, in his official and individual
capacities; JAY PORTEEN, in his official
and individual capacities,

               Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                  Timothy J. Cavan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                   Argued and Submitted November 15, 2023
           University of Washington Law School, Seattle, Washington

                                        2
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, ** District
Judge.

       Shari Cane appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a mistrial in a

civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Livingston Police Officer

Corey O’Neill and the City of Livingston (“City”). O’Neill and the City cross-

appeal the district court’s denial of O’Neill’s motion for summary judgment on the

basis of qualified immunity. We affirm the denial of the motion for mistrial and

dismiss the summary-judgment cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

       “A district court’s decision on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Vincent, 758 F.2d 379, 380 (9th Cir. 1985).

“Moreover, [d]eclaring a mistrial is appropriate only where a cautionary instruction

is unlikely to cure the prejudicial effect of an error.” United States v. Randall, 162

F.3d 557, 559 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

(alteration in original).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for

mistrial. Cane argues that a mistrial was warranted because O’Neill’s counsel

made a prejudicial statement regarding Cane’s criminal history during his opening

       **
              The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for
the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

                                           3
statement. Preliminarily, Cane did not propose any curative instruction at trial and

has therefore waived a challenge. Additionally, the record reflects the single

comment came immediately after the court had instructed the jury not to treat

opening statements as evidence, and at the close of trial, the court gave the curative

instructions it stated it would when denying Cane’s motion. Therefore, the court’s

instructions cured the prejudicial effects, if any, of the comment made by O’Neill’s

counsel “because juries are presumed to follow such cautionary instructions.”

Randall, 162 F.3d at 559.

      As to the cross-appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of summary

judgment. Federal appellate courts generally do not have jurisdiction over denials

of summary judgment after trial. See Booker v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 969 F.3d 1067,

1072 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184–85 (2011)).

Because the district court denied O’Neill’s qualified-immunity claim on the basis

of factual disputes regarding the stop and arrest of Cane, and the jury verdict in

favor of O’Neill resolved these disputes, the issue is moot. See Rodriguez v.

County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 794 (9th Cir. 2018).

      The district court’s denial of the motion for mistrial is AFFIRMED, and the

cross-appeal on the denial of the summary-judgment motion is DISMISSED.

                                          4