Gary H. Brush v. Peter Farber-Szekrenyi

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GARY H. BRUSH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETER FARBER-SZEKRENYI, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17818
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01009-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 13, 2012***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gary H. Brush, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17818 2
and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
dismissal as a sanction, Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636, 638
(9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brush’s action as
a sanction after reviewing the evidence before it and concluding that Brush
submitted fraudulent affidavits concerning alleged violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. See Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d
1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 allows sanctions if a filing is either
legally frivolous or factually misleading); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural
Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (a district court may exercise
its inherent power to dismiss an action as a sanction when a party willfully
deceives the court).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --