`NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NIC OLAS M O R

AN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DEB B IE HILL, Se rge ant; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16484 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-00016-GB C 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 Ge ra ld B . C ohn, M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 *** B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Nic ola s M oran a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his post-judgm e nt m otion for a ne wtria l following a jury ve rdic t in his 42 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED OCT 05 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.

** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1983 a c tion a lle ging a n Eighth Ame ndm e nt e xc e ssive forc e c la im . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion a m otion for a

ne w tria l. K

odev . C arlson , 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M oran ’ s m otion for a ne wtria l ba se d on de fe nda nts’ a lle ge d inc onsiste nt tria l te s tim ony be c a use the re wa s substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporting the jury ’ s ve rdic t . Se eMolsk i v . M. J . C able , Inc . , 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ The distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of the m otion for a n e w tria l is re ve rsible only if the re c o rd c o nta ins no e vide nc e in support of the ve rdic t.” ); W

ate c C o. v . Liu , 403 F.3d 645, 651 n.5 (9th C ir. 2005) (thec re d ibility of the witne sse s a

n d the we i ght of thee vide nc e are issue s for the jury and a re ge ne ra lly not subje c t to a

ppe lla te re vie w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M oran ’ s m otions for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use M oran did not dem onstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se e Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s re quire m e nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M oran ’ s m otion for an inte rpre te r be c a

use M oran wa s profic i e nt in English. Se e U nite d State

s v . May ans , 17 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th C ir. 1994) (sta nda rd of re vie w a

n d re quire m e nts

1 2 - 1 6 4 8 4 2for an

inte rpre te r). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r M oran’ s c ha lle nge s to theorde r de ny ing his m otion for re c onside ration of his motion for ne w tria l be c a use M oran

fa ile d to file a tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l of this order. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 4(1)(A). M oran wa ive d his a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to givec e rta in jury instruc tions be c a

use he did not re que st suc h instruc tions be low. Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 51(d)(1)(B ). W e do not c onside r issue s not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the o pe ning brie f, or ra i se d for the first tim e in the re p ly brie f . Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). W e do not c onside r doc um e nts not file d with the distric t c ourt. Se eUnite d State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C i r. 1990) (“ Doc um e nts or fa c ts not pre s e nte d to the distric t c ourt a re not pa rt of the re c ord on a

ppe a l.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 6 4 8 4 3