Donald Dowell v. William Griffin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-55749 · 2013-02-15 · Unpublished

Donald DOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Todd GRIFFIN, Sergeant Team Police Officer, #4210; Matthew Botkin, City of San Diego Police Officer, # 5875; Matthew Zdunich, City of San Diego Police Officer, #5836, Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Procter R. Hug, Jr. (author), Joseph J. Farris, Edward Leavy

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD DOWELL, No. 12-55749 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02576-CAB- MDD v. WILLIAM TODD GRIFFIN, Sergeant MEMORANDUM * Team Police Officer, # 4210; MATTHEW BOTKIN, City of San Diego Police Officer, # 5875; MATTHEW ZDUNICH, City of San Diego Police Officer, # 5836, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2012 ** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Donald Dowell appeals pro se various decisions of the district court following an unfavorable jury verdict in his § 1983 action against three San Diego police officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1 We review a court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). We likewise review a court’s granting or denying a request for a subpoena for abuse of discretion. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendants’

evidentiary motions in limine. A district court may properly exclude evidence that is not relevant to proving that party’s claims. See Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008); Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., 447 F.3d 769, 782 (9th Cir. 2006).

Moreover, reversal is not warranted because Dowell cannot show prejudice. See Wall Data Inc., 447 F.3d at 783.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to subpoena Dowell’s witnesses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not require a district court to 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we do not recount the facts here.

2 subpoena a party’s witnesses in a civil proceeding. Moreover, Dowell was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to issue subpoenas.

AFFIRMED.