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 h e p a rtie s c o n s e n te dto p r o c e e db e f o r e am a g is tr a te ju d g e . See 28 ** U . S . C . § 6 36 (c ).

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 J O H N TH O M A S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R . C OX , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 16693 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 1 6 5 - G SA 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 G a ryS . A us t i n, M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 *** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner J oh n T ho m as appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entfol l ow i ng a j ury tri al i n h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng that 

# FI LED JU L 25 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16693 2 d e f e n d a n t u s e de x c e s s iv e f o r c e . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re vi ew for an abu se of di sc re t i on the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on s r el at ed t o tri al m a n a g e m e n t. P i e r c e v . C ount yof O r ange , 5 2 6 F .3 d1 1 9 0 , 1 2 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng T ho m as ’ pretri al m ot i on f orthe a tt e nda nc e of

a n i nc a r c e r a t e d w i tne s s be c aus e T hom a s f i l e d the m ot i on m or e tha n tw o m onths a f t e rthe c ourt ’ s de a dl i ne a nd di d noti de nt i f ythe w i tne s s ori ndi c a t e how the w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m onyw a s r e l e va ntt o the a l l e ge d i nc i de nt a t is s u e . Se e Zi v kov i c v . S. Cal. E dis on C o. , 302 F . 3d 1080, 1088 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ T r i a l c ourt s ha ve br oa d author i tyt o i m pos e r e a s onabl e t i m e l i m i t s . ” ( c i t a t i on a nd in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) ; s e e al s o F e d. R . E vi d. 402 ( “ I rr e l e va nt evi dence i s notadm i ss i bl e. ”) . B e c au s e T h o m a s f

a ile dto p r o v id e atr a n s c r ip t o f th e tr ia l, w e a r e u n ab le to r e v ie w h is c o n te n tio n s c h a lle n g in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s e v id e n tia ryru lin g s . See F e d . R . A p p . P . 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; Sy nc om Capi tal C or p. v . W ade , 92 4 F . 2d 16 7, 16 9 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( per c uri am ) ( di sm i ss i ng appeal of pro se app el l antfor f ai l ure t o p rovi de a tr i a l tr a ns c r i pt ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e de c l i ne t o c ons i de rT hom a s ’ appe a l t o the e xt e nt h e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a d e e rr o n e o u s ru lin g s du r in g th e tr ia l. T ho m as ’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.