GARY BRUSH V. PETER FARBER-SZEKRENYI, No. 11-17818 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY H. BRUSH, No. 11-17818 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01009-DLB v. MEMORANDUM * PETER FARBER-SZEKRENYI, et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ** Submitted November 13, 2012 *** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Gary H. Brush, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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). and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as a sanction, Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brush s action as a sanction after reviewing the evidence before it and concluding that Brush submitted fraudulent affidavits concerning alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 allows sanctions if a filing is either legally frivolous or factually misleading); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (a district court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an action as a sanction when a party willfully deceives the court). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17818

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.