T hi s di s pos i t i on i s not appr opr i a t e f or publ i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nte xc e pt * a s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 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 i thout ** 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 on orabl e J am es G . C arr, S eni or D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** * C our tf orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof O hi o, 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
K E I T H L A V O I E , a s i ngl e m a n, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R U S S E L L H A Y N E S , a m a rr i e d m a n; C IT Y O F M E S A , a g o v ern m en ten t i ty, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16713 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 5 5 - ECV 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona E dw a r d C . V os s , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 15, 2013 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: H A W K IN S and M . S M IT H , C ir cui tJudg es , and C A R R , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED FEB 20 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h o u g h L a V o ie in itia lly r a is e d as u f f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e c h a lle n g e a s w e ll, 1 h e h a s n o w c o n c e d e d th a t h e w a iv e d th a t is s u e b y f a ilin g to f

ile a m o tio n p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 5 0 . Se e O r t i zv . J or dan , 131 S . C t . 884, 894 ( 2011) ( “ A bs e nt[ a R ul e 50( b) ] m ot i on, an appe l l a t e c our ti s ‘ pow e r l e s s ’ t o r e vi e w the suff i ci encyof the evi dence af t ertri al . ”) (c i t at i on om i tt ed).

2 K ei th L aV oi e ( “ L aV oi e” ) app ea l s a n a dv er se j ury verdi cti n h i s e xces si ve force ac t i on brou gh tag ain st O ff i ce r R usse l l H ay nes ( “ H ay nes” ) a nd the C i ty of M es a, A r i z ona ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ A ppe l l e e s ” ) unde r42 U . S . C . § 1 983, c ha l l e ngi ng the a dm i s s i on of

c e r t a i n e vi de nc e a s a vi ol a t i on of F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e 404( b) a nd 4 0 3 . W e a f

f i rm. 1 W h ile e v id e n tia r y ru lin g s a r e ty p ic a lly r e v ie w e d f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , se e, e . g. , V aldi vi a v. Schw arze negg er , 5 9 9 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3

– 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 3 1 S . C t. 1 6 2 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) , o b je c tio n s n o t p r o p e r ly p r e s e rv e d a r e r e v ie w e d o n ly f o rp la in e r r o r , U n i t edState s v . Si ne , 4 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 3 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; see a l so Fe d . R. E v id . 1 0 3 ( e ) . W h e th e rp a r tic u la re v id e n c e c o m p r is e s “o th e ra c ts ” s o a s to im p lic a te R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 9 8 9 F .2 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e ha ve s e r i ous doubt s a s t o w he the r L a V oi e pr ope r l y pr e s e rve d a ny a s pe c tof hi s e vi dent i ary c hal l enge. H e f ai l ed t o t i m el y obj ec tattri al t o m ostof the evi dence n o w a t is s u e . See F ed. R . E vi d. 10 3(a) . C om po un di ng thaterror, hi s app el l at e bri ef s negl ec tt o cl ea rl y pre se nthi s a rgum ent s or t o ci t e a nd prov i de po rtio n s of the re cord3

c r i t i c al t o thi s c our t ’ s r e vi e w . E ve n r e vi e w i ng f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, though, L a V o ie ’s a r g u m e n ts f

a il. T he e vi de nc e he c ha l l e nge s a s i m pr ope r“ othe ra c t ” e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 404( b) i nvol ve s be ha vi ori m m e di a t e l y f ol l ow i ng, a nd i ntr i c a t e l y r e l a t e d t o, the i nc i de nta tthe he a r tof L a V oi e ’ s l a w s ui t

— hi s a rr e s ta nd purpor t e d s t ab b i n g . A s a r e s ul t , the c o n te s te d e v i d e n c e i s n o t s u b je c t to R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) . See U ni ted Stat es v. D orse

y , 677 F .3 d 9 4 4 , 9 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) ( “[ E ]v id e n c e s h o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e r e d . . . ‘o th e ra c t’ evi dence w i thi n the m ea ni ng of R ul e 40 4(b) i f ‘ the evi dence concerni ng the other a ct a n d th e e v id e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e [ e v e n t a t is s u e in th e c a s e ] a r e in e x tr ic ab ly i nt e r tw i ne d. ’ ” ( quot i ng U ni te d State s v . Sol i m an , 81 3 F . 2d 27 7, 27 9 (9th C i r. 19 87 )) ). T h e e v id e n c e is l i k e w is e n o t m o r e p r e ju d ic ia l th a n p r o b a tiv e u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 , a s it s tr ongl y s upp o rt s A ppe l l e e s ’ the ory tha tL a V oi e w a s be ha vi ng s o w i l dl y dur i ng the a rr e s t th a t h e m a y h a v e g r ab b e d H a y n e s ’s k n if e a n d in ju r e d h im s e lf

. A s “[ h ]a rm le s s e rr o ra n a ly s is ap p lie s to th e im p r o p e ra d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e ,” U n i ted S ta tes v. Ch a se , 34 0 F . 3d 97 8, 99 3 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( en banc) (c i t at i on om i tt ed), w e a l so no t e, t o ext i ng ui sh any rem ai ni ng do ub t , that even i f the di stri ctcourtdi d err i n adm i tt i ng the cont es t ed evi dence, such error w ou l d b e harm l es s. T he chal l enged e v id e n c e o n ly le n d s s u p p o r t to o th e r , u n c o n te s te d e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g th a t H a y n e s d id no t , i n fac t , st ab L aV oi e. AF F I RME D.