FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN MILLER, No. 09-15365
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:00-cv-01733-EJG-JFM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF BUTTE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jean Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for defendants
after a jury trial in Miller’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during
her arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion the trial court’s conduct during trial. Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d 1237,
*
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).
1252 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
To the extent that Miller seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
used by the jury in reaching its decision, she forfeited the right to do so by failing
to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) or (b). See Nitco Holding Corp. v.
Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “a party
procedurally defaults a civil appeal based on the alleged insufficiency of the
evidence to support the verdict if it fails to file a post-verdict motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict”).
We do not consider Miller’s contention that a member of the jury was biased
because it was raised for the first time on appeal, and its consideration is not
“necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v.
ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
Miller’s remaining contentions, including allegations of incompetence and
bias by the district court judge and fraud upon the court, are unpersuasive.
Miller’s motions for a further extension of time to file a supplemental reply
brief are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15365