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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c 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).

T he H onor abl e S uz a nne B . C onl on, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** * the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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 B H U P A T R . B H A T T I, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S E L E E NA UL AH AN NA N, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17408 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 7 5 4 - W BSEFB 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 W i l l i a m B . S hubb, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 17, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T A L L M A N and C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O N L O N , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED FEB 22 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A pp el l antB hu patR . B hatt i appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s e xcl usi on of three pi e c e s of e vi de nc e dur i ng a n e l e ve n- da y j ury tr i a l . B ha tt i br oughtthe unde r l y i ng ci vi l ac t i on al l egi ng thatS ac ra m ent o C ou nty s oci al w orker S el ee na U l ahannan vi ol a t e d B ha tt i ’ s F i r s ta nd F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s t o f a m i l i a l a s s oc i a t i on u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 w h e n s h e d r o v e B h a tti’s s o n f r o m h is h o m e to af

a m ily s he l t e ron A ugus t29, 2003. T he j ury tr i a l r e s ul t e d i n ave r di c ti n f a vorof U la h a n n a n , f

in d in g th e c h ild w a s n o t r e m o v e d u n d e rc o lo ro f la w , b u t s im p ly to a c c o m m o d a te th e m o th e r ’s d e c is io n to le a v e th e r e s id e n c e . E vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, G e ne r al

E le c . C o. v. Joi ner , 522 U . S . 136, 141–42 ( 1997) , a nd w e do notr e ve r s e e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs u n l ess th e ru l i n g s are “ m an i fest l y erro n eo u s and prej ud i ci al . ” Orrv . B a n k o f A m. , 28 5 F . 3d 76 4, 77 3 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). A s the part i es ar e f a m i l i a rw i th the f

a c t s , w e r e pe a tthe m he r e onl y a s ne c e s s a ry t o e xpl a i n our d eci si o n . W e co n si d er each p i ece o f ev i d en ce sep arat el y. ( 1) I nf orm a t i on r e l a t e d t o U l a ha nna n’ s i m m i gr a t i on: B ha tt i a r gue s tha tthe f a c ts s u rr o u n d in g U la h a n n a n ’s 1 9 9 7 im m ig r a tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m itte d to dem on stra t e thatthe soci al w orker had com m i tt ed i m m i grat i on fr aud. T he di stri ct courtexcl ud ed the evi dence as ov er l y pre j ud i ci al un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 4 0 3 .3

T he di s tr i c tc ourti s “ notr e qui r e d t o e nga ge i n am e c ha ni c a l r e c i t a t i on of R u le 4 0 3 ’s f

o rm u lao n th e r e c o r d a s lo n g a s it ap p e a r s f r o m th e r e c o r d a s aw h o le tha tthe tr i a l j udge a de qua t e l y w e i ghe d the pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof proffe re d evi dence before i t s a dm i ss i on . ” B ow oto v . Che v r on C or p. , 621 F . 3d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 3 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d m a rk in g s o m itte d ) . C itin g R u le 40 3, the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned that“ w hi l e an argum entcoul d b e m ade that [ in f o rm a tio n r e la te d to U la h a n n a n ’s im m ig r a tio n is ] s o m e h o w r e le v a n t . . . th a t is p r e tty r e m o te . A n d th e m a jo rc o n c e rn w o u ld b e th a t th e ju ry w o u ld n ’t c o n s id e rit for thatm ore r em ot e purpo se , bu tw ou l d con si der i tfor the pu rpose of c hara ct er evi dence agai nstM s. U l ahannan. ” T he courtal so no t ed thatal l ow i ng the evi dence w o u ld e f f e c tiv e ly r e q u ir e am in i- tr ia l w ith in atr ia l a n d lik e ly c o n f u s e th e ju ry . See F e d. R . E vi d. 608( b) . T he r e i s no m a ni f e s te rr ori n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e a s oni ng a nd no abus e of

i t s di s c r e t i on. ( 2) T he S a c r a m e nt o C ounty f a m i l y c ourt ’ s J une 2004 t e m por a ry or de ra nd f a c tua l f i ndi ngs : T he di s tr i c tc ourtde t e rm i ne d the r e c or ds w e r e i rr e l e va nta nd he a r s a y . C ourt s do notge ne r a l l y t a ke not i c e of othe rc ourt s ’ f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs f or th e p u rp o s e o f

a s s e rtin g th e m a s tru th . W y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 4 n .5 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d tha tf a c tua l f i ndi ngs m a de dur i ng B ha tt i ’ s di vor c e pr oc e e di ngs the f ol l ow i ng y e a rw e r e i rr e l e va ntt o the4

q u e s tio n w h e th e rU la h a n n a n ’s a c tio n s o n A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . T h e d e c is io n to e x c lu d e th is e v id e n c e w a s n o t m a n if e s tly e rr o n e o u s a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . (3) T he D V D : T he D V D i n q uest i on w as fi l m ed i n 2 00 4 b y B hatt i ’ s brother o n e y e a ra f

te rth e in c id e n t in q u e s tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its di sc re t i on w hen i texcl ud ed the evi dence because i tl ac ked con t extand rel evance a n d w a s to o f

a rr e m o v e d f

r o m th e e v e n ts o f

A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 . AF F I RME D.