IVIN MOOD V. COUNTY OF ORANGE, No. 19-56009 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVIN MOOD, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-56009 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00762-SVW-KK MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF ORANGE; DOES, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, and D. LOPES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Ivin Mood appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his * 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). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a policy of using excessive force by Orange County sheriffs during intake of detainees into the Orange County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mood failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Orange County sheriffs had a policy or custom of excessive force by using rear-wrist lock control holds on compliant detainees during the intake process at the Orange County jail. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom that inflicts plaintiff’s constitutional injury); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-56009

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.