9th Circuit upholds jury verdict against a prisoner's excessive force and retaliation claims, finding no…
Suarez v. Valladolid
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds jury verdict against a prisoner's excessive force and retaliation claims, finding no abuse of discretion in trial continuance denial, evidence exclusions, or refusal to appoint counsel.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment entered after a jury found against Jose Alfredo Suarez, a prisoner who sued prison officials for excessive force and retaliation. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions to deny a trial continuance, exclude certain evidence and testimony as irrelevant or hearsay, and deny Suarez's requests for appointed counsel. The court reasoned that Suarez failed to show prejudice from any of the rulings and that his circumstances did not meet the high bar for appointed counsel in civil cases.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects incarcerated people who bring civil rights lawsuits in federal court, particularly those who represent themselves and seek appointed lawyers or face evidence rulings at trial. It reinforces that prison officials defending such suits benefit from deferential review of trial court decisions.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Jose Alfredo Suarez, a prisoner, brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against several prison officials alleging excessive force and retaliation. After a jury returned a verdict against him, Suarez appealed, raising three main issues: whether the trial court wrongly denied his request to postpone the trial, whether it wrongly excluded certain evidence, and whether it wrongly refused to appoint him a lawyer. On the continuance request, Suarez argued he was denied access to legal research materials before trial. The Ninth Circuit applied a four-factor test considering diligence, impact of the delay, inconvenience to the court and other party, and prejudice to the moving party. Because Suarez could not show he was actually harmed by the denial, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion. On the evidentiary rulings, the court addressed three categories of excluded evidence. First, testimony about Suarez's childhood encounter with law enforcement was excluded as irrelevant to the specific excessive force incident at issue. Second, Suarez's personal journals, letters, and videotaped interviews were excluded as hearsay because he admitted he wanted to use them to prove the truth of what they said, and no exception applied. Importantly, the court noted Suarez was still allowed to testify himself about those same events, so he was not prejudiced. Third, grievances filed against one of the defendants were excluded as both hearsay and irrelevant to the specific April 20, 2020 incident at the heart of the lawsuit. On the question of appointed counsel, the court explained that there is no constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil rights case. A court may seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances, based on how likely the person is to succeed and how complex the claims are. The district court found that Suarez's limited education and legal knowledge, while real, are common among incarcerated people and do not alone create exceptional circumstances. The court also noted that Suarez's own filings were coherent and showed he understood his claims, which were not unusually complex. The Ninth Circuit agreed this was within the district court's discretion. The panel unanimously affirmed the judgment. There was no dissent. The ruling does not change existing legal standards but applies them to confirm that prisoners facing these obstacles in civil litigation must show specific prejudice and exceptional circumstances to obtain relief on appeal.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALFREDO SUAREZ, No. 24-5286 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:22-cv-00160-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* O. VALLADOLID; KEN CLARK, Warden; B. CAMARGO; GAMBOA; T. HIENG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jose Alfredo Suarez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following a jury verdict, against his excessive force and retaliation claims. Suarez contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to continue the trial, by excluding certain trial evidence and testimony on relevance and hearsay grounds, * 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). and by denying his multiple motions for appointed counsel. We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and reverse only where error is prejudicial. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2017); Boyd v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling on a motion to continue. See Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2020). We also review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Suarez a continuance after he contended that he was denied access to legal research materials. To determine whether a district court’s denial of a continuance is an abuse of discretion, we may consider: (1) the moving party’s diligence; (2) the impact of a continuance on the moving party’s goal; (3) the inconvenience of a continuance to the court and other party; and (4) any prejudice of a denial toward the movant. Bearchild, 947 F.3d at 1138. Because the record supports the conclusion that Suarez fails to show prejudice from the denial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance request. Id. 2 24-5286 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding as irrelevant testimony at trial about Suarez’s childhood encounter with law enforcement. See Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 111 F.4th 1018, 1035 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402). The court concluded that details about that unrelated incident were irrelevant to the excessive-force incident at issue. Excluding this evidence was well within the court’s broad discretion under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005). And Suarez cannot show that this exclusion was prejudicial. See Boyd, 576 F.3d at 943. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Suarez’s journals and other personal material as inadmissible hearsay. Suarez conceded that he sought to introduce his journals, letters, and videotaped interviews—which are out- of-court statements—for the truth of the matters asserted. The court properly concluded that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay, not subject to any exception or exemption. See Fed. R. Evid. 801–02. Moreover, because the court permitted Suarez to testify about the events reflected in those materials, he was not prejudiced. See Boyd, 576 F.3d at 943. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding other grievances regarding Defendant Valladolid as both irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay. The district court reasonably concluded that such documents were: (1) out-of-court 3 24-5286 statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted not subject to any hearsay exception; and (2) irrelevant to Suarez’s excessive-force claim arising from the April 20, 2020 showering incident. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 801–02. 3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Suarez’s motion for the appointment of counsel. No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a civil rights action, and the court may seek volunteer counsel only under “exceptional” circumstances based on an evaluation of the litigant’s likelihood of success and ability to articulate his claims given the complexity of the issues. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; U.S. ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793–94 (9th Cir. 1965); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The district court reasonably concluded that Suarez had not satisfied this standard. Suarez asserted that he had limited education and legal knowledge. Yet the court found that these circumstances are common to many incarcerated litigants. The ordinary effects of a litigant’s incarceration do not, without more, constitute the exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court further observed that Suarez’s filings were coherent and demonstrated an understanding of his claims, which were not unusually complex. Id. Thus, the district court acted well within its discretion in denying Suarez’s request for appointed counsel. AFFIRMED. 4 24-5286
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.