Micaela Zamora v. Mike Seadler

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICAELA ZAMORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MIKE SEADLER; CLYDE CHENG;
ALEX TORKE; A. WOLF; S. MAJOROS;
T. SHEARER; T. NIESEN; M. OVER; A.
LANGE; R. CIRAULO; J. MASTILOCK;
A. LAYTON; J. GREEN; D. RUSH; F.
SAUNDERS; D. MACHADO; J.
OLIVER; B. STERKEL; D. WINTER; J.
FANUCCHI; MARK SCHALLER,
indvidually and in their capacities as Santa
Clara police officers; JOHN DOE, 1;
RICHARD ROE; CITY OF SANTA
CLARA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15203
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-03066-PSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2013
San Francisco, California
FILED
DEC 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Micaela Zamora, on behalf of the decedent Nancy Nava, appeals from a
judgment entered after a jury trial in a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging excessive force by police officers in violation Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Zamora alleges (1) that the trial court’s jury instructions “failed [as
a matter of law] to adequately instruct the jury” as to the meaning and definition of
“force,” and (2) that the trial court’s failure to strike the testimony of the
defendants’ expert witness was prejudicial error. We have jurisdiction over this
timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Because the facts and circumstances of this case are well-known to the
parties and were fully aired during oral argument, we find it unnecessary to repeat
them here. Suffice it to say that upon examination, we conclude that the court’s
adapted instructions based upon Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 9.22 (2007)
were neither erroneous as a matter of law, nor such that they impeded the plaintiff
from presenting and arguing her case to the jury. In these circumstances, the court
did not abuse its discretion in rejecting as superfluous her proposed special
instructions. See Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2013)
(the formulation of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

As to Zamora’s second contention, we conclude that even if we were to
determine that the court erred in not striking Fonzi’s testimony, any such error was
harmless. See Liebsack v. United States, 731 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“[T]he erroneous admission of expert testimony is subject to harmless error
analysis . . . .”).
The issue of qualified immunity is moot.
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --