FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 25 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN THOMAS, No. 11-16693
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01165-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. COX,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted July 17, 2012 ***
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Thomas appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
defendant used excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions related to trial
management. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1200 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’ pretrial
motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness because Thomas filed the
motion more than two months after the court’s deadline and did not identify the
witness or indicate how the witness’ testimony was relevant to the alleged incident
at issue. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“Trial courts have broad authority to impose reasonable time limits.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Irrelevant
evidence is not admissible.”).
Because Thomas failed to provide a transcript of the trial, we are unable to
review his contentions challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings. See Fed.
R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.
1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal of pro se appellant for failure to provide a
trial transcript). Accordingly, we decline to consider Thomas’ appeal to the extent
he contends that the district court made erroneous rulings during the trial.
Thomas’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16693