Brandy Marie Sandoval v. SETH MELVIN, Winston Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDY MARIE SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SETH MELVIN, Winston Police
Department,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
SERGEANT TURNER,
Defendant.
No. 21-35213
D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00712-YY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Youlee Yim You, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 16, 2022**
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35213
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Brandy Marie Sandoval appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Officer Seth Melvin violated
her constitutional rights by using excessive force when arresting her. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, S.R. Nehad v. Browder,
929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2019), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sandoval
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Melvin’s use of
force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. See id. (setting
forth objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations);
Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809, 817 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We may infer from the
minor nature of a plaintiff’s injuries that the force applied was minimal.”); Glenn v.
Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 871-72, 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (balancing the
intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights against the government’s
interest in that intrusion).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --