UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE THORNS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. A. DAVIS, Lieutenant Officer of

Calipatria State Prison; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-55495

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB

Southern District of California, 

San Diego

ORDER

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

The district court has belatedly received Bruce Thorns’s timely amended

notice of appeal in this case. We recall the mandate issued on February 1, 2012. 

The memorandum disposition filed on January 10, 2012, is withdrawn. A new

memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

A petition for rehearing, if any, is due within 14 days of the filing date of the

new disposition. 

FILED

JUN 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE THORNS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. A. DAVIS, Lieutenant Officer of

Calipatria State Prison; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-55495

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Bruce Thorns, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging,

among other claims, that defendants used excessive force against him. We have

FILED

JUN 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55495

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

district court’s evidentiary rulings. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010,

1030 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to exhibit RRR

where it ordered defendants to redact Thorns’s prior offenses from the exhibit

immediately upon Thorns’s objection and before entering the exhibit into evidence. 

See McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To

reverse on the basis of an evidentiary ruling, this Court must conclude both that the

district court abused its discretion and that the error was prejudicial.”); see also

United States v. Sangrey, 586 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1978) (no abuse of

discretion for not giving a limiting instruction where no party asked for one). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thorns’s motion to

vacate because Thorns failed to establish any grounds justifying vacating the jury’s

special verdict. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds

for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
3 10-55495

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.