N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ILLIE JAM ES M c NEAL,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10421

DC No. C R 16-0014 GEB
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 Garland E. B urre ll, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 14, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, TASHIM A, a nd M c KEOW

N, C i rc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt W illieJa

m e s M c N e a l (“ M c Ne a l” ) a ppe a l s from

his c onvic tion for
a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury unde r 18 U.S.C . § 113(a )(6). The a ssa ult
oc c urre d in a

prison se tting. Hec onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously de nie d 

# F IL ED M AR 20 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).his m otion in limine to pre se nt e vide nc e of se lf de fe nse and re que sting a se lf de fe nse jury

instruc tion, a

n d e rrone ously

e xc lude d portions of M c Ne a l’ s te stim ony
a s we ll a s M c Ne a l’ s proffe re d e xpe rt at tria l. M c N e a l a rgue d tha t the vic tim

ha d pre v iously

thre ate ne d

M c Ne a l at le a st twic e and tha t, im m e diate ly prior to the
atta c k , M c Ne a l re a liz e d tha t the vic tim

wa s le a ding M c N e a l to a n am bush in the la undry room whe re the vic t im

and his frie nds would be at up M c Ne a l. B e c a use of the s e thre ats a

nd the i m m ine nt a m bush, M c Ne a l a

rgue d tha t he ha d to pre e m ptive ly atta c k the vic t im

to prote c t him se lf. Whe re , a s he re , the distric t c ourt’ s ruling on the m otion in limine

pre c lude s the p re se ntation of a

de fe nse , we re vie w de novo. Se eUnite d State s v . Biggs , 441 F.3d 1069, 1070 n.1 (9th C i r. 2006). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion a

distric t
c ourt’ s e v ide ntia

ry rulings, O bre

y v . J o hnson , 400 F.3d 691, 694 (9th C ir. 2005),
and rulings on the a dm issibility of e xpe rt te s tim ony , Unite d State s v . C astane da , 94 F.3d 592, 595 (9th C ir. 1996). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t to de ny M c Ne a l’ s m o t ion in limine be c a use M c Ne a l c ould not dem onstra te tha t he ha d “ a

re a sona ble be lie f tha

t the use of forc e wa s ne c e ssa

ry to de fe nd him se lf or a

nothe r a ga i nst theim

m e diate use of unla wful forc e .” Biggs , 441 F.3d a t 1071; se ealso United

State s v . Glae s e r , 550
2F.2d 483, 487 (9th C ir. 1977) (holding tha t a de fe nda nt m ust m a k e out a prim a fa c i e c a se in orde r to pre s e nt e vide nc e of a n a ffirm ative de fe nse at tria l). It is
unc onte s te d tha

t M c Ne a l struc k

the first blow in the

a lte rc at ion tha

t le d to his
a ssa ult c onvic tion. Under this C irc uit’ s pre c e d e nt, M c Ne a l is the re fore fore c lose d from pre se nting a

the ory of se lf de fe nse be c a use he pre e m

ptive ly atta c ke d. Se e Unite d State s v . Ac osta-Sie rra , 690 F.3d 1111, 1126 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [A] n individual who is the

atta c ke r c annot m ake out a c la im of se lf-de fe nse a s a justific at ion for a

n a ssa ult.” ); Unite d State

s v . Ure na , 659 F.3d 903, 907 (9th C ir. 2011) (e xpla ining tha

t “ e ve n if [the vic t im ] posse sse d a knife , the e vide n c e wa s undispute d tha

t it wa s [the de fe nda

nt] who wa s the atta c ke r, an d thus hec ould not in thosec irc um sta

n c e s suc c e ssfully

urge a se l f de fe nse the ory ” ). Thus, e ve n ta king
a s true M c Ne a l’ s a lle gation tha t the vic tim

of the a ssa

ult ha d pre viously

thre ate ne d M c N e a l a nd wa s pla

nning a n am bush in the

la undry room , M c N e a l wa s not
e ntitle d to usepre e m

ptive se lf de fe nse . Se eid. . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not e rr in de ny i ng M c Ne a l’ s m o tion in limine
. 2. The distric t c ourt a lso did not a buse its disc re tion in e x c l uding M c N e a l’ s te stim o ny

re ga rding thevic tim ’ s a lle ge d prior thre ats, nor in e x c luding M c N e a l’ s proffe re d e xpe rt. M c Ne a l a rgue s tha t both should ha

ve be e n a dm itte d be c a use the y we re re le va

nt to theissue of se lf de fe nse . Howe ve r, be c a use the tria l
3c ourt did not err in de ny ing M c Ne a l’ s m otion to put forwa rd a the o ry of se lf de fe nse , it did not a

buse its disc re tion in e xc luding e vide n c e re late d only to tha t the o ry of se lf de fe nse . C

f. Unite d State

s v . He lle r , 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err by fa iling to rule

on a m otion in limine a fte r the de fe nda

nt wa ive d is right to a

jury tria l a nd the e vide nc e would no longe r go be fore the jury )). AFFIRM E D.

4