FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
BRUCE THORNS, No. 10-55495
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB
Southern District of California,
v. San Diego
R. A. DAVIS, Lieutenant Officer of
Calipatria State Prison; et al., ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The district court has belatedly received Bruce Thorns’s timely amended
notice of appeal in this case. We recall the mandate issued on February 1, 2012.
The memorandum disposition filed on January 10, 2012, is withdrawn. A new
memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
A petition for rehearing, if any, is due within 14 days of the filing date of the
new disposition.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE THORNS, No. 10-55495
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. A. DAVIS, Lieutenant Officer of
Calipatria State Prison; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Thorns, 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,
among other claims, that defendants used excessive force against him. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s evidentiary rulings. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010,
1030 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to exhibit RRR
where it ordered defendants to redact Thorns’s prior offenses from the exhibit
immediately upon Thorns’s objection and before entering the exhibit into evidence.
See McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To
reverse on the basis of an evidentiary ruling, this Court must conclude both that the
district court abused its discretion and that the error was prejudicial.”); see also
United States v. Sangrey, 586 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1978) (no abuse of
discretion for not giving a limiting instruction where no party asked for one).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thorns’s motion to
vacate because Thorns failed to establish any grounds justifying vacating the jury’s
special verdict. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 10-55495
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-55495