Pepperdine Caruso Law Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic Students Present Oral Argument in Court
In 2026, three students in the Pepperdine Caruso Law Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic presented oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Gilliland v. Eason
In February, Denis Bogatin and Madison Ross appeared on behalf of Robin Gilliland in his lawsuit against two Oregon sheriff’s deputies. Gilliland alleged that the deputies transported him to a hospital against his will, used excessive force, and forced him to undergo medical treatment despite his objections. The district court dismissed the case after granting summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Gilliland failed to produce any evidence to support his allegations.
Gilliland appealed and the Ninth Circuit appointed the Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic to represent Gilliland on appeal. Denis and Madison reviewed the record, researched potential appellate issues, and prepared opening and reply briefs on Gilliland’s behalf. They argued that the district court made a procedural error by failing to treat Gilliland’s complaint—which he verified under oath—as evidence. They also argued that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to create triable issues of fact on Gilliland’s claims.
At oral argument, the three-judge panel posed many questions to both students. A few weeks later, the court issued its opinion, reversing the grant of summary judgment and reinstating Mr. Gilliland’s complaint. The court agreed with Bogatin and Ross’s argument that the district court erred in failing to treat the verified complaint as evidence, and that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to support a claim for excessive force against one of the deputies. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Mr. Gilliland’s other claims.
Powell v. Ortiz
Collin Tarleton argued his case in May, during the week of graduation. Tarletin represented Jeremy Powell in an excessive force lawsuit against two police officers. Powell’s complaint alleged that the officers who arrested him after a car chase used unnecessary force by striking him with a baton and using their body weight to smash his face into the pavement. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were immune from suit because their actions did not violate any clearly established law. The district court denied the motion and the defendants appealed.
The Ninth Circuit appointed the Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic to respond to the defendant’s appeal. Tarleton researched the arguments in the opening brief and drafted an appellee’s brief in response. The appellee’s brief argued that the Ninth Circuit should reject the appeal because it was clearly established at the time of the incident that police officers cannot strike a suspect who has already been subdued and is not offering any resistance. At oral argument, the three-judge panel seemed to be divided, with different judges asking hostile questions to each side. The court has not yet issued its opinion, but Tarleton and clinic co-directors Rebecca Powell and Curt Cutting are optimistic that the Ninth Circuit will allow Powell to proceed with his complaint.
