N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JIM M YM C DONALD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. GREG C LAR

K, C o rre c tiona l Offic e r; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17006 D.C . No. 1:09-c v-00730-SKO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia She ila K. Obe rto, M a g i strate Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

13, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, PAEZ, a nd C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Jim m y M c Dona l d a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following a jury ve rdic t in fa

v or of Gre g C la

rk, Ada m C ano, Howa

rd R o be rts, a

n d R o be rt R odrigue z (c o l le c tive ly , “ C la rk” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and we a ffirm . 

# FIL E D JUL 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing M c Dona ld’ s m otions for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l. 1 “ The a buse of disc re tion sta

n da rd re quire s us to uphold a

distric t c ourt de t e rm ination tha t fa l ls within a

broa d range of pe rm issiblec onc lusions in the a bse nc e of a

n e rrone ous a

pplic ation of la

w.” Grant v . C ity of Long Be ac h , 315 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th C ir. 2002), ame nde d by 334 F.3d 795 (9th C i r. 2003) (orde r) . In the c onte x t of a m otion for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915, thedistric t c ourt m ust e va luate “ at le a st . . . thelike lihood of the pla intiff’ s suc c e ss on them e rits a n d . . . thepla intiff’ s a

bility to a rtic ulate his c la im s ‘ i n light of the

c om ple xity of the le ga l issue s involve d.’ ” A gy e man v . C orr. C orp. of Am. , 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion omitte d ). The re we re thre e issue s at sta

ke in M c Dona ld’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt de libe rat e indiffe re n c e c la im : 1) whe the r a ssigning M c Dona ld to a n uppe r bunk pre se nte d

a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm , 2) whe the r C la

rk kne w of a

n d disre ga

rde d tha t risk, a nd 3) whe the r C la

rk’ s a c tions or inac tion c a u se d ha rm to M c Dona ld. C la

rk c onc e de d the first issuea s pa

rt of the sum

m ary judgm e nt proc e e dings, a

nd the c ourt found tha

t the re wa s a

ge nuine fa c tua l disputea s to these c ond a nd third. Give n M c Dona ld’ s re sponse to C la

rk’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt m otion a

nd the nature of the re m a ining tria b le issue s—

prim arily , one s of witne ss c re dibility

— we a ffirm the c ourt’ s

1 On a ppe a l, this c ourt a

ppointe d pro bono c ounse l on be ha lf of M c Dona ld.

2de nia ls of M c Dona ld’ s m otions for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l. Se eW ilborn v . Esc alde ron , 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th C ir. 1986). 2. M c Dona ld ne xt a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt c om

m i tte d re v e rsible e rror in susta ining C la

rk’ s obje c tion to the

De Fran c e C hrono. Eve n a ssum ing thec hrono wa s re le va

nt unde r Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e 401 a

nd 402, wec o nc lude tha

t the c ourt’ s e rror wa s not pre

judic ia l. Se eBoy d v . C

i ty & C nty . of San Franc isc o , 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th C ir. 2009). Ha d the c ourt a dm itte d the De Fran c e C hrono for m ore tha n the lim ite d purposeof showing why prison offic i a ls tra

nsfe rre d M c D ona ld in August 2005, the jury still would ha

ve ne e de d to e va luate e a c h witne s s’ s c re dibility . And a lthough housing tra nsfe rs re quire d a

se rge ant’ s a pprova l , suc h e vide nc e would show a c h a in of c om

m unic ation from

gua rd to se rge ant rathe r tha

n from se rge ant to gua

rd, a s re fle c te d in theDe Franc e C hrono. Thus, no pre

judic e o c c urre d. 3. Fina lly , M c Dona ld a

rgue s tha t the tria l c ourt pla inly

e rre d in pe rm itting C la rk’ s c o unse l to vouc h for C la rk’ s witne sse s’ c re dibility . Assuming for the purpose s of this disposition tha t c ounse l’ s sta

te m e nts c onstitute d

im prope r vouc hing, a

n issuewe do not de c ide , thosesta te m e nts do not c a ll thefa irne ss of the tria l into que stion to a s uffic ie nt de gre e to wa rrant a ne wtria l . Se eHe mmings v . Tidy man’s Inc . , 285 F.3d 1174, 1192 (9th C ir. 2002). M c Dona ld c ite s one brie f 3insta

nc e of a l le ge d m isc onduc t during c o unse l’ s c losing a rgum e nt. Se eid. at 1194 (c onside ring “ an isola

te d, short c om

m e nt during a

c losing sta

te m e nt tha

t c ove re d 66 pa ge s whe n tra

nsc ribe d” ). And C la

rk othe rwise pre se nte d e vide nc e of prison protoc ols, stre sse d M c Dona ld’ s la c k of doc um e ntation to support his c l a im , a nd pre s e nte d a

n a lte rnative the ory of c a

usation. Se eid. at 1195 (c onside ring the stre ngth of a

pa rty ’ s c a se ). Thus, M c Dona ld fa ils to m e e t his burde n of showing pre j udic e on this re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

4