Opinion
No. 18-15159
08-07-2020
DEYOE R. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA POLICE DEPARTMENT, UofAPD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02453-LCK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Lynnette C. Kimmins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
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).
Appellant Deyoe Harris, proceeding pro se, challenges the jury's verdict finding Appellees did not use excessive force during a 2013 stop where Harris was tased, handcuffed, and taken to the hospital. The scope of our review is limited to the issues raised by Harris in his opening brief, notwithstanding his pro se status. See Entm't. Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997); Wilcox v. Comm'r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988).
We deny Harris's pending motions to admit evidence and for consideration. [Docs. 8 and 47.]
We received an amicus brief raising several evidentiary issues that Harris does not appeal. We find review on these grounds not necessary "to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process." Bolker v. Comm'r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1997) (on review of record, issue raised by amici not present). --------
On substantial evidence review, we find no grounds to overturn the jury's verdict. See Barnard v. Theobald, 721 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013). The jury heard from officers, medical personnel, and witnesses that Harris was uncooperative, combative, yelling, and actively resisting. The jury also heard Harris's version, and it was their role to assess credibility, not ours. See Hung Lam v. City of San Jose, 869 F.3d 1077, 1085 (9th Cir. 2017). With multiple witnesses testifying about Harris's erratic and uncontrollable behavior leading up to the use of a taser, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. Id.
AFFIRMED.