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 i tho utoral ar gu m ent , and there fore deni es W as hi ng t on ’ s r equestfor ora 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 E S S E WAS HI NG T ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J . F A N N O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 17530 D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 1 3 1 7 - M CE GG H 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 M orr i s on C . E ngl a nd, J r . , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 5, 2011 ** B e f o r e : B . F L E T C H E R , C L I F T O N , a n dB E A , C ir c u it J u d g e s . Je ss e W as hi ng t on , a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntf

ol l ow i ng aj urytr i a l i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng e xc e s s i ve f

or c e a nd de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve



# FI LED APR27 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 17530 2 j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on a d is tr ic t c o u rt’s e v id e n tia ryru lin g s . T ri tchlerv. Cnt

y. of L ake , 358 F . 3d 1150, 1155 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f

f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bye xc l udi ng w i tne s s e s w ho w er e noti dent i fi ed i n W as hi ng t on ’ s ori gi nal pretri al st at em entbecause the t op i cs u p o n w h ic h h e a lle g e dth e yw o u ldte s tif yw e r e n o t r e le v a n t. See F e d. R . E vi d 402 (“ E vi dence w hi ch i s notre l evanti s notadm i ss i bl e. ”) . T o the ext entthatD r. R o s e n b e r g ’s te s tim o n ym a yh a v e b e e n r e le v a n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly exer ci se d i t s di sc re t i on because the nature of thatt es t i m on y s ho ul d h ave been ant i ci pat ed pri or t o the pretri al confere nce, and there fore shou l d h ave been in c lu d e din W a s h in g to n ’s p r e tr ia l s ta te m e n t p u r s u a n t to th e c o u rt’s p r e v io u s o r d e r . Se e Zi v kov i c v . S. Cal. E dis on C o. , 30 2 F . 3d 10 80 , 10 88 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ ‘ T ri al c o u rts h a v e b r o a dau th o r ityto im p o s e r e a s o n ab le tim e lim its .’” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . C o n tr a ryto W a s h in g to n ’s c o n te n tio n , d e f e n d a n ts w e r e n o t ju d ic ia lly es t op ped from denyi ng the use of e xces si ve force base d o n t es t i m on y by ano ther p erso n i n an o th er case co n cern i n g d i fferen tev en t s. See H a m i l to n v. S ta te Fa rm Fi r e & Cas . C o. , 270 F . 3d 778, 782- 83 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( e xpl a i ni ng doc tr i ne of ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l) .09- 17530 3 W a s h in g to n ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . A FFI R M ED .