FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHANIEL JEROME WILLINGHAM, No. 08-17387
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-03744-MMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a public
entity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nathaniel Jerome Willingham appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment after a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, inter alia, that
*
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).
IL/RESEARCH
08-17387
police officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for public intoxication. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order for
judgment as a matter of law. Torres v. City of L.A., 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.
2008). We review for prejudice the denial of requested jury instructions. Criswell
v. Western Airlines, Inc., 709 F.2d 544, 552 (9th Cir. 1983). We review for
sufficiency of evidence a jury’s verdict. Watec Co., Ltd. v. Liu, 403 F.3d 645, 651
n.5 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for an abuse of discretion evidentiary rulings.
Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Willingham contends in error that the district court dismissed counts three
and four of his Amended Complaint; it did not.
The district court properly denied Willingham’s motion for judgment as a
matter of law. Under California Penal Code section 647(f), officers may arrest a
suspect whenever they have probable cause to believe he violated the statute
regardless of whether or not the arrestee could have been properly convicted of a
violation. See In re R.K., 160 Cal. App. 4th 1615, 1624 (2008) (recognizing that
“regardless of how an intoxicated person comes to be in a public place, the police
must necessarily have the authority to arrest and remove that person” even if a
IL/RESEARCH
2 08-17387
subsequent conviction might be improper.) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Willingham’s remaining challenges to this ruling are unavailing as they
concern the facts properly found by the jury. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the
evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary
judgment or for a directed verdict.”).
The jury’s verdict was supported by “substantial evidence.” Watec Co.,
Ltd., 403 F.3d at 651, n 5.
Willingham failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the district
court’s decision not to provide certain proposed instructions to the jury. Criswell,
709 F.2d at 552.
The district court did not abuse its discretion either by admitting
impeachment evidence of Willingham’s disbarment, see U.S. v. Jackson, 882 F.2d
1444, 1448 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming introduction of defendant’s 12-year-old
disbarment as impeachment evidence in criminal case), or by excluding evidence
of alleged misconduct by a police officer, see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (“Evidence of
IL/RESEARCH
3 08-17387
other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show action in conformity therewith.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Willingham’s
motion to disqualify the district court judge. See Liteky v.United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion.”).
We affirm summary judgment for defendants on Willingham’s claims under
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See Fisher v. City of San
Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (holding jury’s verdict against
plaintiff on Fourth Amendment claim mooted his Monell claim).
We do not consider Willingham’s contention that the district court
improperly denied his motion to continue the trial because he has not provided us
with a record concerning this ruling. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d
167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal of pro se appellant who did not ensure
that the court had a complete trial transcript to enable review of his contentions).
Willingham’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
IL/RESEARCH
4 08-17387