N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAR Y R ONNELL PER

K INS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C . ANGULO, C orre c tiona l C ounse lor at C e n tine l a State Prison; T. R AYB ON, C orre c tiona l C ounse lor II at C e ntine la State Prison; J. B E R

NAL, C a pta in a t C e n tine l a State Prison,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-55114 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-00850-DM S-KSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Dana M . Sa braw, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
MAR 8 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C a lifornia prisone r Gary

Pe rkins a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt following a

jury tria l in his 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 re ta lia tion a c tion a ga inst De fe nda nts C arlos Angulo, Tra c y R ay bon, a nd Jua n B e rna l (c olle c tive ly , De fe nda nts). Se e U.S. C onst. a

m e nd. I. Pe rkins a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt should not ha

ve a dm itte d a

1996 prison R

ule s Viola

tion R e port (R

VR ) into
e vide nc e . W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion, 1 and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the R VR
wa s a uthe ntic
. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 901(a); Vaty an v . Muk ase y , 508 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th C ir. 2007). TheDe fe nda nts e a c h te stifie d tha

t the R VR wa s a n a c c urate
re pre se ntation of a

doc um e nt tha

t he or she pe rsona lly vie we d in Pe rkins’
e le c tronic prison file and re lie d upon in de ny i ng his fa m ily visit a pplic a tion. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 901(b)(1). Tha t a m ounte d to suffic ie n t e v ide nc e tha t the doc um e nt
wa s wha t it c la i m e d to be , 2 pa

rtic ula rly whe n Pe rkins did not point to a ny e vide nc e

1 Unite d State

s v . Alv i re z , 831 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th C ir. 2016); s e e also Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ). 2 Se e Unite d State

s v . Estrada-Elive rio , 583 F.3d 669, 673 (9th C ir. 2009); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Smith , 609 F.2d 1294, 1301–02 (9th C ir. 1979).

2supporting his spe c u l a tive the ory tha t the R VR ha d be e n fa bric at e d. C

f. Unite d State s v . Bonallo , 858 F.2d 1427, 1436 (9th C ir. 1988). 3 Like wise , the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm i tting theR VR into e vide nc e . Se e Alv ire z , 831 F.3d a

t 1120. TheR

V R satisfie d the be st e v ide nc e rule be c a u se the re c ord showe d tha t it wa s a printout of informa tion store d in a
c om pute r data b a se , a n d thus is de e m e d to be an origina l. Unite d State

s v . Be nne tt , 363 F.3d 947, 953 (9th C ir. 2004); se e also Fe d. R . Evid. 1001(d)–(e ), 1002; c f. Unite d State s v . Diaz-Lope

z , 625 F.3d 1198, 1202 (9th C ir. 2010). TheR VR wa s not he arsay

be c a use it wa s not a dm itte d for its truth, 4 so the he a rsay e xc e ptions
we re irre le va

nt. 5 Nor wa s the R

VR unduly pre judic ia l to Pe rkins. Se e Fe d. R
. Evid. 403. R

athe r, it wa s signific an t proba tive e vide n c e be aring upon the De fe nda nts’ m o tiva

tion for de ny ing Pe rkins’ fam ily visit a pplic a tion, whic h wa s a ke y e le m e nt 6 of Pe rkins’ re ta lia tion c la im . Pe rkins ha s not e xpla ine d a ny im prope r or unfa i r influe nc e tha

t e vide nc e c ould ha

ve ha d upon thejury , a

pa rt from the usua l

3 B e c a use the De fe nda

n ts’ te stim ony

wa s suffic ie n t to a

uthe ntic at e the R

VR unde r R ule 901, we ne e d not a

nd do not c onside r Pe rkins’ a ssorte d c ha lle nge s to the E . Va ng de c l ara tion. Se e Vaty a n , 508 F.3d a t 1184; se e also Hink

son , 585 F.3d a t 1261–63.

4 Se e Fe d
. R . Evid. 801(c )(2). 5 Se e Unite d State

s v . Arte aga , 117 F.3d 388, 396 & n.14 (9th C ir. 1997). 6 Se e Rhode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th C ir. 2005). 3pre

j udic e tha t inhe re s in a l l re le va

nt e vide n c e . Se e Unite d

State s v . Hank e y , 203 F.3d 1160, 1172 (9th C ir. 2000). 7 Fina lly , nothing in the

re c ord indic a te s tha

t the distric t judge ha

rbore d a ny im pe rm issiblebia s a ga inst Pe rkins. Se e Lite k y v . Unite d State

s , 510 U.S. 540, 555–56, 114 S. C t . 1147, 1157–58, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994); Unite d State s v . Sibla , 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th C ir. 1980). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or m a tte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the ope n ing brie f. Se e Padge tt
v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

7 For the sa

m e re a son, we re

j e c t Pe rkins’ R

ule 403 c ha lle nge to pa

rts of De fe nda nts’ te stim ony

re ga rding the ir re a sons for re

je c t ing his a

pplic a tion. 4