FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, No. 13-56450
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00103-LAB-
WVG
v.
GREGORY BLAKE, Caliptria State MEMORANDUM*
Prison Locksmith,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Mueller v. Auker, 700 F.3d 1180,
1193 (9th Cir. 2012) (denial of a motion for a new trial); Goodman v. Staples The
Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 2011) (discovery sanctions),
and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stevenson’s motion
for a new trial because Stevenson failed to establish that defense counsel
committed misconduct, and therefore did not present any basis for a new trial. See
Mueller, 700 F.3d at 1193-94 (“The district court’s denial of a motion for a new
trial is reversible only if the record contains no evidence in support of the verdict
or if the district court made a mistake of law.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1192 (9th Cir.
2002) (“[W]e will not overrule a district court’s ruling about the impact of
counsel’s alleged misconduct unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the
court committed a clear error of judgment.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district did not abuse its discretion in denying Stevenson’s motion for
sanctions because the record demonstrates that defendant’s failure to produce
documents was not intentional. See Goodman, 644 F.3d at 822.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56450