T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T G A RY B. M EEK S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J O H N PA RSO N S, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15612 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 3 - c v - 0 6 7 0 0 - O WW G SA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y11, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: G O U L D and M . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G E R T N E R , D i stri ctJudg e. *** A f te rs u f f e r in g as e r io u s ja w in

ju ry , f o rm e rC e n tin e laS ta te P r is o n in m a te G a ryM e e ks br oughta42 U . S . C . § 1983 s ui ta ga i ns tJ ohn P a r s ons , the pr i s on d o c to rw h o o v e r s a w h is m e d ic a l c a r e , a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is 

# FI LED MA Y16 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

m e d ic a l n e e d s in v io la tio n o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . A f te raf iv e - d a ytr ia l, th e ju ry re tu rn ed a v er d ict fo r P ar so n s. M ee k s ap p ea ls th re e o f th e d istrict co u rt’s tr i a l de c i s i ons : ( 1) e xc l udi ng e vi de nc e of P a r s ons ’ s pr i ort e rm i na t i ons f ors l ow pat i entcare ; (2) e xcl ud i ng evi dence of the st at ew i de M edi ca l S ervi ce s D el i very P l a n; a nd ( 3) i ns truc t i ng the j uryt o gi ve de f e r e nc e t o pr i s on s e c ur i typol i c i e s a nd p r a c t i c e s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n excl ud i ng fr om evi dence, pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 403, both P a r s ons ’ s pr i ort e rm i na t i ons a nd th e M ed i cal S erv i ces D el i v ery P l an . “ ‘ A s l o n g as i tap p ears fro m th e reco rd as a w ho l e thatthe tri al j ud ge adequat el y w ei gh ed the prob at i ve val ue and p re j ud i ci al e f f e c tof pr of f e r e d e vi de nc e be f

or e i t s a dm i s s i on, w e c onc l ude tha tthe de m a nds of R ul e 403 have been m et . ’ ” Bo y d v . Ci t y& Cn t y . o f S. F. , 5 7 6 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 8 ( 9 th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. V

erdu zc o , 37 3 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 29 n. 2 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 )). T h e d i stri ctco u rtreaso n ab l y co n cl u d ed th atP arso n s’ s p ri o r t erm i n at i o n s, w hi ch ar ose f

rom ci rc um st ance s unrel at ed t o thi s c as e, m i gh tgi ve an un w arrant ed sugg es t i on of m i sc on du cton al l of P ar sons’ s tre atm entdeci si on s. A l so, the di stri ct courtre as on abl y c on cl ud ed thatadm i ss i on of the M edi ca l S ervi ce s D el i veryP l an a s atr i a l e xhi bi tm i ghtgi ve r i s e t o the unf a i ri nf e r e nc e tha tP a r s ons kne w of a nd unde r s t ood the doc um e ntbuti gnor e d i t s r e c om m e nda t i ons . F orthi s r e a s on, the3

d i stri ctco u rt , th o u g h ex cl u d i n g th e d o cu m en ti t sel f, p erm i tt ed M eek s t o cro sse x a m in e P a r s o n s o n h is u n d e r s ta n d in g o f its c o n te n ts . T h is d e c is io n w a s w e ll w ith in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s “b r o a d d is c r e tio n in c o n tr o llin g th e c o n d u c t o f atr ia l . . . [ a nd i n] e xe r c i s [ i ng] r e a s onabl e c ontr ol ove rthe pr e s e nt a t i on of e vi de nc e a nd i nt errogat i on of w i tness es . ” P enk v . O r. Stat e B d. of Hi gh erE du c. , 816 F . 2d 458, 46 5 (9th C i r. 19 87 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s and qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb yin s tru c tin g th e ju ryto g iv e d e f e r e n c e to pr i s on s e c ur i typol i c i e s a nd pr a c t i c e s . I n N orw oo d v. V

an ce , w e hel d thatj uri es s houl d be i ns truc t e d t o gi ve de f e r e nc e t o pr i s on of

f i c i a l s ’ a dopt i on a nd e xe c ut i on of pol i c i e s a nd pr a c t i c e s f ordi s c i pl i ne a nd s e c ur i tyw he n thos e pol i c i e s a nd pr a c t i c e s a r e a ti s s ue i n pr i s one r“ c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nt ” c a s e s . 591 F . 3d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 6

– 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . B e c au s e th is is a“c o n d itio n s o f c o n f in e m e n t” c a s e , se e W

i l son v. Sei ter , 50 1 U . S . 29 4, 30 3 (19 91 ) ( “ [T ] he m edi ca l care a p r is o n e rr e c e iv e s is ju s t a s m u c h a‘c o n d itio n ’ o f h is c o n f in e m e n t a s th e f

o o d h e is f e d, the c l othe s he i s i s s ue d, the t e m pe r a tur e he i s s ubj e c t e d t o i n hi s c e l l , a nd the pr ot e c t i on he i s a f

f or de d a ga i ns tothe ri nm a t e s . ” ) , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i ns truc t i on pr ope r l yappl i e d N

orw ood . E ve n i f

w e w e r e t o di s t i ngui s h N orw ood t o e xc l ude ca se s abo utm edi ca l care fr om the sc op e of i t s hol di ng , as M ee ks urges, the di stri ct co u rt’s erro r w o u ldh av e b ee n h ar m less . G iv en th e ju ry ’s re jectio n o f M ee k s’s4

m ai n argum entthatP ar sons del ay ed and p rotra ct ed M ee ks’ s c ar e t o avo i d the hard w o rkr e q u ir e d to tr e a t M e e k s e f f e c tiv e ly , th e w is d o m o f

C e n tin e la ’s s e c u r ity pol i c i e s a nd P a r s ons ’ s e xe c ut i on of thos e pol i c i e s w a s m or e pr obabl ytha n not irr e le v a n t to th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t a n d th u s h a rm le s s . Se e C le m v . L o m e li , 566 F . 3d 11 77 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). AF F I RME D.