Jeremy John Braulick v. Corrections Corporation of America; Jennie Didier

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY JOHN BRAULICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA; JENNIE DIDIER,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MIKE BATISTA; CONNIE WINNER;
SARAH PHIPPS; DOUGLAS FENDER,
Warden; ACEL THACKER; HEATHER
SAND; KYLE NASREEN; CHRISTOPHER
ROST; JOSEPH BERDECIA; JOSEPH
BERDECIA; MARTHA DOBBINS-
ODEGARD; WILLIAM PEARSON;
STEPHEN GLEIM; TRISTAN KOHUT;
PAUL REES; LANCE GRIFFIN; BRIAN
ROBINSON; REGINALD MICHAEL;
LORAINE WODNIK; CINDY HINER;
SANDY JACKE; MICHAEL FLETCHER,
Defendants.
No. 20-35278
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00122-JTJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAR 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
John T. Johnston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 8, 2022
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, BEA, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jeremy Braulick, appearing pro se, brought a First Amendment retaliation
claim against Nurse Jennie Didier which he lost at a jury trial, and a Monell claim
against Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) which he lost at summary
judgment. Represented by pro bono counsel, Braulick appeals on three grounds: (1)
the district court erred when it denied his motion for appointment of counsel, (2) the
district court erred when it instructed him not to object during closing arguments at
trial, and (3) the district court erred when it granted summary judgment. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Appointment of Counsel
We review a district court’s refusal to appoint counsel in a civil case for abuse
of discretion. Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court
may appoint counsel only upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer
v. Valdez, 560 F.3d. 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Exceptional circumstances do not exist
if the pro se litigant is able to “articulate his claims . . . in light of the complexity of
the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952,
954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it

-- 2 of 4 --

3
concluded that Braulick was able to articulate his claims, relying on the quality of
his detailed pleadings and the simplicity of his case.
2. The Closing Argument Instruction
A trial court’s decision to limit objections during closing arguments is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Patel, 762 F.2d 784, 794-95 (9th
Cir. 1985). It was an abuse of discretion for the district court to instruct Braulick that
he was not permitted to object at all during closing arguments because
contemporaneous objections are the method by which litigants preserve error for
appeal. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). But the error was
harmless, as the argument to which Braulick claims he would have objected was a
short, isolated comment he refuted on rebuttal.
3. The Monell Claim
To establish Monell liability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a
policy of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Miranda v.
City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2005). Braulick pointed to three
unrelated occurrences over the course of his three-year incarceration during which
he missed doses of his thyroid medication. But these “isolated or sporadic” incidents
do not amount to a policy of deliberate indifference. Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911,
918 (9th Cir. 1996). Reviewing de novo, Gordon v. County of Orange, 6 F.4th 961,
967 (9th Cir. 2021), summary judgment was proper.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --