N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TION ALONZO HILL, Sr.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. JOSHUA AR

N OLD, De p uty , a

nd VIC TOR SANC HEZ, Se rge ant, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16468 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-05434-TEH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia T he lton E. He nde rson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding

Subm itte d April 19, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . On July 13, 2009, a

fight brokeout be twe e n inm ate s at Sa n Franc isc o C ounty Ja il #5. Sta

nding ne arby , but not dire c t ly involve d , wa s pre tria l de ta ine e



# F IL ED
APR 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Tion Hill. De puty Joshua

Arnold a nd Se rge a n t Vic t or Sanc he z (c o lle c tive ly ,

“ De fe nda nts” ) re sponde d

to the inc ide nt, c onta ine d the situa tion, a nd orde re d a ll the i nm ate s ba c k to the ir c e lls. Hill re turne d to his c e ll a s instruc te d. Hill a lle ge s that De fe nda nts the n e nte re d his c e ll, c uffe d him , a nd viole ntly

tra nsporte d him

to
a dm inistra

tive se gre gation. De fe nda nts pre se nt a

diffe re nt ve rsion of e v e n ts,
c la im ing tha

t the y c uffe d a nd e s c orte d Hill to adm inistra tive se gre gat ion without
any undue viole nc e . Hill file d a

la wsuit a lle ging e xc e s sive forc e in viola tion of his Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights a s a

pre tria l de ta ine e . During disc ove ry , De fe n da nts produc e d two prior grie va

nc e s a l le ging e x c e ssive forc e a ga i nst De puty Arnold a n d two prior inm ate grie va

nc e s a lle ging e xc e ssive forc e a g a inst Se rge ant Sa nc he z . B e fore tria l, De fe nda nts file d a m otion in lim

ine to e xc lude e vide nc e of the se inm ate grie va nc e s
a s im prope r c ha

ra c te r e vide nc e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 404. In his opposition, Hill did not disc uss the substa

nc e of the s e inm ate grie va nc e s, nor did heatta c h c opie s of the se inm ate grie v an c e s for the distric t c ourt to e v a luat e . The distric t c ourt gra nte d De fe nda

nts’ m otion a

nd e xc lude d

the inm ate grie va nc e s. The c a se the n proc e e de d to tria l whe re Hill a nd De fe nda

nts pre se nte d
c onflic ting ve rsions of theinc ide nt. Afte r a five -da y tria l , the jury re nde re d a

2ve rdic t in fa

v or of De fe nda

nts. Hill tim

e l y a ppe a ls, c ha lle n ging thedistric t c ourt’ s
e vide ntia ry ruling. W e a ffirm
. A distric t c o urt’ s e xc lusion of e vide nc e is re vie wa ble on a p pe a l only

if “ a pa rty inform s the [distric t] c ourt of [the ] substa n c e by an offe r of proof, unle ss the substa nc e [of the e vide nc e ] wa s a ppa re nt from the c onte xt.” Fe d. R . Evid. 103(a )(2); Pau v . Yose m i tePark & C urry C o. , 928 F.2d 880, 887 (9th C i r. 1991) (stating tha

t a pa rty c ha lle nging e x c lusion of e vide nc e “ m u st ha v e atte m pte d to introduc e the e vide nc e [that] wa s im prope rly e xc lude d to pre s e rve the [] right to
a ppe a l” ). Hill a c knowle d ge s tha

t he fa ile d to m ake an offe r of proof, but heargue s tha t his fa ilure should bee xc use d be c a use the substa

nc e of the inm ate grie va

nc e s wa s suffic i e ntly

obvious from

his opposition to De fe nda nts’ m otion in lim

ine . Not so. Hill’ s opposition did nothing m ore tha n re fe re nc e the e xiste nc e of inm ate grie va nc e s a ga i n st De fe nda

n ts without providing a

ny de ta il. Suc h a

c ursory de sc ription pose s a

proble m be c a use a c ourt re vie wing a dm issibility of prior a c ts
m ust de te rm ine whe the r the prior a c ts a re suffic ie ntly

sim ila r to the c onduc t
c om pla i ne d of in thepre se nt c a se . Se e Unite d State s v . Ay e rs , 924 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th C ir. 1991). W ithout a m ore spe c ific de sc ription, or a n offe r of proof, both the distric t c o urt a

nd this C ourt a

re le ft in theda

rk and c annot a d e quat e ly

a sse ss the
3a dm issibility of the se inm ate grie va

nc e s. The re fore , Hill forfe ite d his e vide ntia ry
a ppe a l by fa iling to make an offe r of proof. AFFIRM E D.

4