United States v. 2020-03-11 | 17-15160 | JEREMY GUNDERSON V. ANTONIO RIVAS-PARDO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY LAWRENCE GUNDERSON,
AKA Jeremy L. Gunderson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANTONIO RIVAS-PARDO, named as a
corrections officer at Pima County Detention
Center; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15160

D.C. No. 4:13-cv-01131-JAS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Former pretrial detainee Jeremy Lawrence Gunderson appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

*
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).
FILED

MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-15160
review de novo the district court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual
findings. Milicevic v. Fletcher Jones Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court committed any legal
error. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (under the
Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee must show that the “force purposely or
knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable”); Rodriguez v. County
of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 788 (9th Cir. 2018) (under the Eighth Amendment, a
prisoner must show that force was applied maliciously and sadistically for the
purpose of causing harm to demonstrate an excessive force claim).
Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in its
factual findings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on
appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to
the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence
relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d
167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to
comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).
Appellant’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 32) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.