Kathy Glenn Clay v. PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017, individual and official capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHY GLENN CLAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017,
individual and official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56286
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06599-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael R. Wilner, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 15, 2017***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kathy Glenn Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment entered
following a jury verdict in favor of defendant Papik in Clay’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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).
FILED
NOV 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56286
excessive force action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Clay failed to preserve her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
because Clay did not move for judgment as a matter of law either before or after
the jury’s verdict. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the verdict in a civil case, a party must make two motions. First, a party must file a
pre-verdict motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Second, a party must file a
post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a motion for a
new trial, under Rule 50(b).” (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --