N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GEOR GE E. JAC O B S, IV, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JEANNE S. W OODFORD, e t a l., De fe nda

nts, a nd J. M ASIEL, e t a l. De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15451 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-00369-JLT 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 J e nnife r L. Thurston, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED FEB 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.B e fore : TALLM AN a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M URPHY, Distric t Judge . ** Ge orge E. Ja c obs, IV a

ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nts e nte re d in this c ivil rights ac tion. Ja c obs m ake s thre e a ssignm e nts of e rror. He c la im s the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing his mo tion to subpoe na doc um e nts and his re que st to re c a l l De fe nda nt M artine z for im

pe a c hm e nt, a

n d e rre d in instruc ting thejury

re ga rding his e xc e ssive forc e c la im . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 (2012). B e c a u se we find no re ve rsible e rror, we a ffirm . 1. Distric t

c o urt rulings c onc e rning disc ove ry issue s a re re v ie we d

for a buse of disc re tion. K

ulas v . Flore

s , 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th C ir. 2001). “ Pro se litiga nts m ust follow the

sa m e rule s of proc e dure that gove rn othe r litiga nts.” K ing v . Atiy e h , 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th C ir. 1987), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Lac e y v . Maric opa C

nty . , 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th C ir. 2012). In light of Ja c obs’ s la c k

of dilige n c e throughout the

e ight-m onth disc ove ry

pe riod, we find the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to re -ope n disc ove ry . Se e C al. Union Ins. C o. v . Am. Div e rsifie d Sav . Bank , 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th C ir. 1990). Simila rly , the d istric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e va luating Ja c obs’ s re que st a s one for a t ria l subpoe na

and de ny i ng his m otion on the ground tha

t the re would be

** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion. 2insuffic ie nt tim e to orde r inc arc e rate d witne sse s tra nsporte d to thec ourthouse . Fe d. R . C iv. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i). 2. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion. W agne r v . C

nty . of Maric o

p a , 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a gre e tha t the d istric t c o urt’ s e xpla

nation of its de c ision wa s ba se d on a n ina c c urate re c o lle c tion of M artine z ’ s te stim ony . Eve n so, thede c ision to perm it a pa rty to re c a ll a witne ss is disc re tiona

ry , a nd we do not find the

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision e rrone ous. Se e Rode lla v . Unite d State s , 286 F.2d 306, 309 (9th C ir. 1960). Furthe rm ore , the distric t c o urt’ s de c i sion wa s not pre judic ia l, a s Ja c obs ha d two opportunitie s to im

pe a c h M artine z— during dire c t e xam ination a nd re -dire c t— and fa ile d to do so. 3. “ Jury

instruc tions m

ust fa irly an d a de quate ly

c ove r the issue s pre se nte d, m ust c o rre c tly

sta te the la w, a nd m ust not bem i sle a ding.” D ang v . C ross , 422 F.3d 800, 804 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota tion omi tte d). Ja c obs fa ile d to pre se rve an obje c tion to the

distric t c ourt’ s jury

instruc tions, so we re vie w for pla in e rror only . C .B. v . C ity of Sonora , 769 F.3d 1005, 1016 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). W e c onside r

“ whe the r (1) the re wa s a

n e rror; (2) the e rror wa s obvious, a nd (3) the e rror a ffe c te d substa

ntia l rights.” Id. at 1018. Thedistric t c ourt’ s e x c e ssive forc e

3instruc tion dra wn from Ninth C irc uit M o de l Jury Instruc tions c orre c tly

sta t e d the la w. For this re a s on, we find no e rror. AFFIRM E D .

4