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 by9th C i r . R . 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 B AR R Y L OU I S L AMON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D . L Y T L E , S e r g e a n t; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15706 D. C . No . 2 : 0 3 - c v - 0 0 4 2 3 - AK 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 A l e x K oz i ns ki , C hi e f

Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B a rryL oui s L a m on appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d e n y in g h is m o tio n f

o ran e w tr ia l a n df

r o m v a r io u s o th e rru lin g s in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng F i r s ta nd E i ghth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew for an abu se of di sc re t i on the deni al of a 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 15706 2 m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l, D es r os i e rs v . Fl i ght I nt ’ l of Fla. , I nc . , 156 F . 3d 952, 957 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) , a n dm a ya f f irm o n a n yg r o u n d s s u p p o rte db yth e r e c o r d , J ohns on v. R i versi de H

ea l th ca re S

ys. , 5 3 4 F. 3 d1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng ane w tr i a l ba s e d on defe nd ant s’ al l eged destruct i on of evi dence because L am on fa i l ed t o est abl i sh that th e r e w a s a n ab s o lu te ab s e n c e o f e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t a s to h is d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e to m e d ic a l n e e d s c la im . See D esro si ers , 156 F . 3d a t957. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y i nstruct ed the j ury thatpri son o ff i ci al s w er e ent i t l ed t o d ef

er ence i n h ow they a cc om pl i shed L am on ’ s c el l transfe r bec ause such a n in s tru c tio n is r e q u ir e df o ra ll c o n d itio n s o f

c o n f in e m e n t c la im s . See N

orw oo d v. V an ce , 591 F . 3d 1062, 1067 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( e rr ort o r e j e c tde f e r e nc e i ns truc t i on o n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im ) ; C le m v . L o m e li , 56 6 F . 3d 11 77 , 11 80 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( re vi ew i ng de no vo a j ury i nstruct i on chal l enged as i ncorrec t ). D i sm i ss al of L am on ’ s F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m for deni al of a kosher r e l i gi ous di e tw a s pr ope runde rr e s j udi c a t abe c aus e he ha d a l r e a dyl i t i ga t e d the m e r its o f th e s a m e c la im in h is p r io rs ta te h ab e a s p e titio n . See B ro dh ei m v. Cry , 58 4 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 68 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( i n app l yi ng the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a, court l oo ks t o the l aw of the st at e i n w hi ch pri or j ud gm enti ss ued); Kayv . C i t yof R anc ho P alos V erdes , 50 4 F . 3d 80 3, 80 8-09 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( di sc ussi ng re qu i re m ent s of r es10- 15706 3 ju d ic a tau n d e rC a lif

o rn iala w ) ; W

. R adi o Se rvs . C o. v . G l i c km an , 123 F . 3d 1189, 11 92 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( re vi ew i ng de no vo a di sm i ss al on re s j ud i ca t a groun ds). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d ec l i ni ng t o app oi ntcoun se l b e c au s e L a m o n f

a ile dto s h o w e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See P alm erv. V aldez , 56 0 F . 3d 96 5, 97 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d ec l i ni ng t o con du ct h eari n g s o n fu l l y b ri efed m o t i o n s, d en yi n g L am o n ’ s m o t i o n t o co n so l i d at e cases, g r a n tin g th e p a rtie s c e rta in c o n tin u a n c e s , o ro th e rw is e m a n a g in g th e litig a tio n in its d is c r e tio n . See P re m i ng erv. P eake , 55 2 F . 3d 75 7, 76 9 n . 11 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). W e dec l i ne t o con si der w hether deni al of i nj un ct i ve re l i ef w as prop er b e c au s e th a t is s u e h a s “m e r g e d ” w ith L a m o n ’s s u b s ta n tiv e ap p e a l a s to h is c la im s . See S E Cv. Mo u n t

V ern o n Mem ’l

P a rk , 6 6 4 F .2 d1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 1 - 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . L am on ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .