MOISES PONCE ALVAREZ V. KING COUNTY, No. 18-35382 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOISES E. PONCE ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35382 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00721-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendant, and ADAM R. BUCHAN, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Moises E. Ponce Alvarez appeals pro se from the district court’s order * 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). denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial following a jury verdict for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 611 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alvarez’s motion for a new trial because there was evidence to support the jury’s verdict that defendants’ use of force was reasonable and not excessive. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (describing considerations for evaluating whether use of force was reasonable); see also Kode, 596 F.3d at 612 (“[W]here the basis of a Rule 59 ruling is that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, the district court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion is virtually unassailable. In such cases, we reverse for a clear abuse of discretion only where there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35382

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.