Maxine Sherard, an individual v. Edward Ketcham, as an individual, and in his official capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXINE SHERARD, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EDWARD KETCHAM, as an individual,
and in his official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56758
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02854-L-MDD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maxine Sherard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following
a jury verdict for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
* 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
FEB 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-56758
plain error a challenge to jury instructions absent a timely objection in the district
court. C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1016-19 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
We affirm.
A review of the trial transcripts – which are available on the district court
docket – indicates that Sherard’s trial counsel failed to object to the jury
instructions regarding qualified immunity. Those instructions were not plainly
erroneous because the instructions correctly stated the applicable legal standard.
See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (“Qualified immunity shields
an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally
deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she
confronted.”); C.B., 769 F.3d at 1016-19.
Sherard has not established that the district court committed plain error by
failing to define terms such as landlord, tenant, and eviction. See C.B., 769 F.3d at
1016-19.
Sherard’s claim that her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective fails
because “it is well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to
counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.
1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-56758
We reject Sherard’s contention that her trial counsel failed to submit a
witness list because counsel did in fact submit a witness list.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --