United States v. 2020-11-27 | 18-55916 | JOHN KENNEY V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN B. KENNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55916

D.C. No.
3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 23, 2020
*

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

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

*
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

NOV 27 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
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 (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.

3
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.