Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Duane Jensen v. Lvmpd, 18-15590 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 18-15590 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUANE JENSEN, No. 18-15590 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00029-RFB-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
More
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 16 2020
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DUANE JENSEN,                                    No.    18-15590

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00029-RFB-VCF

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                 Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Duane Jensen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a

jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First

Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      Jensen waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the


      *
             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).
jury’s verdict by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial

before the district court. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 
491 F.3d 1086
,

1089-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, a

party must file both a pre-verdict motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and a post-

verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial under Rule 50(b)).

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                   18-15590

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer