Jesse Grant, Iii v. W. CHEA, Officer 1675, Alameda County;

10-17902Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit29.02.2012

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE GRANT, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. CHEA, Officer #1675, Alameda
County; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17902
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-06191-JF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jesse Grant, III, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
in connection with his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17902 2
review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grant’s excessive
force claims because Grant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether either Varela or Chea was driving the vehicle that allegedly struck Grant’s
motorcycle. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“There is ...
no genuine issue of fact if, on the record taken as a whole, a rational trier of fact
could not find in favor of the party opposing the motion.”)
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grant’s motion for
reconsideration because Grant provided no basis for reconsideration. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60).
Grant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.