Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steve Michael COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard FAGLE; Tony Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-15507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 1, 2011.
    Steve Michael Cox, Carson City, NV, pro se.
    Timothy Andrews, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steve Michael Cox, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of desertion a district court’s evidentiary rulings. United States v. Tran, 568 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Cox’s exhibits because they were irrelevant and contained hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402, 802. Cox has waived any argument that the district court abused its discretion by admitting defendants’ exhibits because Cox does not explain on appeal why the exhibits should have been excluded and did not object to them before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (we do not consider matters not distinctly argued in the opening brief); Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir.1996) (“By failing to object to evidence at trial and request a ruling on such an objection, a party waives the right to raise admissibility issues on appeal.”).

Contrary to Cox’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to nonparty witness Daniel Kalisz because Cox did not properly request a subpoena. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not entitle a plaintiff proceeding in forma pau-peris to a waiver of witness fees for subpoenas).

Cox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.