Fries

Fries v. Rush

Good Law
149 F. App'x 664
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 20, 2005No. 03-57159; D.C. No. CV-97-08699-TJHCalifornia350 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael A. Fries sued Sheriffs Deputy Randall Rush, the Orange County Sheriffs Department, and Orange County under 42 *665 U.S.C. § 1983 . Fries alleges that during the time he was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, Rush directed or caused other inmates to abuse him. He also alleges that Orange County policies relating to the segregation of protective custody inmates placed him in danger. The case went to a jury trial on October 7 and 8, 2003. At the close of Fries’s case, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (1) that Rush was protected by qualified immunity; and (2) that Fries failed to establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo. Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.2001).

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if “during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). We have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.