Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

KENNEY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

John B. KENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55916

Decided: November 27, 2020

Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

John B. Kenney, Pro Se Hannah Girer-Rosenkrantz, Esquire, Deputy City Attorney, Kathy J. Steinman, Deputy City Attorney, San Diego City Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees City of San Diego, City of San Diego Police Department, Sanders, Lansdowne, Thompson, Stum, Jan Goldsmith, Kevin Armentano, Steven Eraca, David Mitchell, James Milano, Rodolphe Sainte-Agathe, Craig Shumate, Erick Valdez Hannah Girer-Rosenkrantz, Esquire, Deputy City Attorney, Kathy J. Steinman, Deputy City Attorney, Marni von Wilpert, Attorney, San Diego City Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Lawrence Morris Gerard Hill, Esquire, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee San Diego Sheriff's Dept. Darth Kadei Vaughn, Attorney, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Tyco, Brett, Bret Jacobus Christian Duane Humphreys, Esquire, Attorney, Dentons US LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Saic Andrew P. Frederick, Attorney, Eric Meckley, Esquire, Attorney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee General Atomics Dylan Michael Aste, Katherine L. Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, DHS Office State & Local Law Enforcement, United States Department of Justice, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, Counter Terrorism Information Center, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Military, Border Patrol, Navy & Other Armed Military Services Frank Gormlie, Pro Se Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee GEO Group & Corrections Corp Ray Lutz, Pro Se Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee U.S. Security Associates Robert A. Crook, Esquire, Attorney, Bradley & Gmelich, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Pinkertons, Pinkerton Governmental Services David A. Berkley, Severson & Werson, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, NA

MEMORANDUM **

John B. Kenney appeals the district court's judgment, following a jury trial, in Kenney's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional and state-law claims stemming from his participation in the Occupy San Diego protests in 2011 and 2012. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We must uphold a jury verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdicts for Officer Koerber and Sergeant Lawrence. See id. (substantial evidence is “evidence adequate to support the jury's conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kenney's post-trial motions because Kenney failed to identify the specific grounds for his motions or to show that he was entitled to relief from judgment, to alter or amend the judgment, or that a new trial was warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), 59(e), 60(b); Kerr v. Jewell, 836 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment); Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 611 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (standard of review for Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial); Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment).

Kenney's contentions of judicial bias are unsupported by the record. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).

We decline to address matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Kenney's motion filed on November 30, 2018, Dkt. No. 8, is DENIED to the extent that it seeks relief not already granted by the order filed on January 3, 2019, Dkt. No. 9. Kenney's motions filed on August 16, 2019, Dkt. Nos. 27 and 28; September 11, 2019, Dkt. No. 35; and September 15, 2019, Dkt. Nos. 37, 38, and 39, are DENIED. Kenney's requests for sanctions contained in the motions filed on October 4, 2019, Dkt. No. 44, and October 7, 2019, Dkt. No. 46, are DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

KENNEY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO (2020)

Docket No: No. 18-55916

Decided: November 27, 2020

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard