## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 36 43

__ __ __ __ __ _ Tim ot hy Sali sb ur y , *
* Pl ai nt iff – Ap pe ll an t, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Ita sc a Co un ty, Dep ut y

Ro b J oh ns on , *
an d Dep ut y

A.J. Mo rs e, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defen da nt s – App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 11 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 25 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Tim ot hy Sal is bu ry fil ed a ci vi l la wsu it ag ai ns t Ita sc a Co un ty Dep ut ie s Ro b Jo hn so n an d A.J. Mo rs e, cl ai m in g th ey us ed ex ces si ve fo rce whe n th ey arre st ed hi m in co nn ect io n wit h a d o m es ti c vi ol en ce cal l. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d in pa rt th e 1 of fic er’s m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e te st im on y fro m Sal si bu ry ’s ex pe rt, an d th ereb y pr oh ib it ed th e ex pe rt fro m co nc lud ing the pol ic e us ed un reas on ab le or ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Sali sb ur y du rin g th e arre st . After a fou r da y tri al , th e jury fo un d in fav or of

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.th e of

fic ers

. Sal is bu ry no w ap pe al s th e di st ric t c o u r t’s or de r gr an ti ng in pa rt th e
m ot io n in li m in e, cl ai m in g th e co ur t erre d (1 ) pr oc ed ur al ly, by acce pt in g th e of fic er’s

m o t i o n a f

t er th e co ur t-s et de ad li ne fo r fil in g di sp os it iv e m ot io ns , an d (2 )

su bs ta nt iv el y , by ab us in g i ts di sc ret io n wh en it gra nt ed th e m ot io n o n t he m eri ts

.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d

we m ay no t rev ers e un le ss th e di st ric t co ur t erre d an d th e erro r affe ct ed th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e ap pe ll an t.” Green v. Ci ty of St

. Lou is , Mo ., 50 7 F.3 d 66 2, 66 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Arch er Dan ie ls Mi dl an d Co .v. Aon Ri sk Serv s., In c., 35 6 F.3 d 85 0, 85 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). “ To warra nt rev ers al , an erro r m us t affe ct a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht of th e ob jecti ng pa rty, and th e bu rd en of sh owi ng pr ejud ic e res ts on th at pa rty.” Vasq ue z
v. Co lo res , 64 8 F.3 d 64 8, 65 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Gil l v. Mac ie jewsk i, 54 6 F.3 d 55 7, 5 62 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

Sal is bu ry ha s fai le d to m eet hi s req ui red bu rd en

. By fai li ng to pr ov id e us wit h

a tri a l t r a n s c rip t to rev ie w, he fai le d to sh ow ho w th e di st ric t co ur t’s al le ge d erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Und er Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 10 (b )(1 ),

“ it is th e du ty of th e ap pe ll an t to or de r a tra ns cri pt of th e po rti on s of th e tri al rel ev an t t o th e is su es rai se d on ap pe al .” Mer on ey v. Delt a In t'l Mac h. Co rp ., 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 4 3 6 , 14 37 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ); se e al so Brat tru d v. Town of Exl in e, 62 8 F.2 d 10 98 , 10 99 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (p er curi am ). W it ho ut a tri al tra ns cri pt , it is im po ss ib le fo r us to pr ov id e
m ean in gf ul rev ie w of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e cert ai n ev id en ce or te st im on y
. See, e.g ., Sch m id v. U n i t e d B hd

. of Carp en te rs & Jo in ers of Am ., 82 7 F .2d 38 4, 38 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en t i a r y
ru li ng s be cau se ap pe ll an t fai le d to pr ov id e a tri al tra ns cri pt ); Cart er v. Ja co bs en , 74 8 F.2 d 4 87 , 48 8- 89 (8t h C ir. 1 98 4) (pe r cu ria m ) (s am e).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-