SEAN CONNELLY V. BRENT FREYBERGER, No. 15-15726 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 1 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEAN DANAHY CONNELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15726 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02283-FJM v. MEMORANDUM* BRENT FREYBERGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Sean Danahy Connelly appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of motions for appointment of counsel, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and rulings on discovery issues, Laub v. * 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). U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s motions for appointment of counsel because Connelly did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (setting forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s “motion for discovery requests.” See Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093 (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Connelly’s contention that the district court ignored his request to amend the complaint. Connelly does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his opening brief and has therefore waived any objection to the district court’s summary judgment on appeal. See Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Mont. 2 15-15726 Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED. 3 15-15726

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.