Maxine Sherard v. Edward Ketcham
Maxine SHERARD, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward KETCHAM, as an Individual, and in His Official Capacity; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- M. James Lorenz (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Alfred T. Goodwin, Ferdinand F. Fernandez
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAXINE SHERARD, an individual, No. 14-56758 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02854-L-MDD v. MEMORANDUM* EDWARD KETCHAM, as an individual, and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 (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).
2 14-56758 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.
3 14-56758