N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN OLIVER

SNOW , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. E.K. M C DANIEL, W arde n, in his offic i a l c a pa c i ty a s W arde n @ ESP; R OB ER T B ANNISTER ; STEVEN M AC AR T HUR ; M AX C AR TER , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16468 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-00046-R C J-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, SILVER M AN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Snow a ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t e nte re d a fte r a jury ve rdic t de ny ing Snow re lie f unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED NOV 20 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.W e dism iss Snow’ s c la im for injunc t ive re lie f a s m o ot sinc e Snow’ s c ounse l indic ate d at

ora l a rgum e n t tha t the hip surge ry

Snow sought a s re lie f ha s be e n pe rform e d. N

ASD Dispute

Re solution, Inc . v . J

u dic ial C ounc il of C

al. , 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2007) (“A c a s e is m oot on a ppe a l if no livec ontrove rsy re m a ins a t the tim e the c ourt of a

ppe a ls he a

rs the c a s e ” ). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s pre tria l e vide ntia ry rulings a s within its wide disc re tion. Allstate

Ins. C o. v . He rron , 634 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha

t a distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia

ry rulings a re re vie we d for a

n a buse of disc re tion). In a ddition, a s to e vide nc e Snow is on de at h row, the distric t c ourt judge e nc oura g e d Snow’ s c o unse l to proposea lim i ting instruc tion—

whic h he did not do. Snow’ s ope ning brie f fa ils to show a ny pre judic e . Fina lly , we de c line to re a c h Snow’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion in its disc

ussions of the

c a se with thejury

sinc e Snow fa ile d to obje c t
at the tim e of the a lle ge d e rrors and ha s not a rgue d pla i n e rror on a

ppe a l
. Rothman
v . Hosp. Se rv . of S. C

al. , 510 F.2d 956, 960 (9th C ir. 1975) (“ T he rule in this
c irc uit is tha

t a p pe lla te c o urts will not c onside r argum e n ts tha t a re not prope rly
ra ise [d] in the tria l c ourts” ); se e Mille r v . Fairc h i ld Indus., Inc
. , 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ W e re v ie w only issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f” ).
2AFFIRM E D.

3Snow v . Mc

Danie l , 13-16468 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I a gre e with m

y c olle a g u e s tha

t Snow’ s c la im

for injunc tive re lie f is m oot 1
and tha t the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in the

c ha l le nge d sta

te m e nts it
m a de to the jury
. I write se p ara te ly be c a use , in m y vie w, the distric t c ourt did
a buse i ts disc re tion by

a llowing introduction of the wholly irre le v ant e vide n c e tha t Snow wa s a

de ath row prisone r. B e c a use we “ m

u s t not shrink from

[our] obliga tion to ‘ e nforc e the c o nstitutiona l rights of a ll “pe rsons,” inc luding prisone rs,’ ” 2 and be c a

use it is c le ar Snow’ s a lle gation of Eighth Am e ndm e nt viola tions wa s not trie d on a

le ve l pla y ing fie ld, I re spe c tfully

disse nt. Snow’ s origina l tria l the ory wa s tha t the De pa rtm e n t of C orre c tions ha d a patte rn of ignoring the m e d ic a l ne e ds of inm ate s, a nd tha t it wa s pa

rtic ula rly indiffe re nt to them e dic a l ne e ds of de ath row inm ate s. B ut in a pre -tria l ruling, the distric t c o urt e xc lude d e v ide nc e of m e d ic a l tre atm e nt a nd c are provide d or de nie d to othe r inm ate s. This na rrowe d the tria l’ s foc us to de fe nda nts’ tre atm e nt of Snow, 

# FIL ED NOV 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 At ora l a

rgum e nt, Snow’ s c ounse l indic ate d tha t Snow’ s hip re pla c e m e nt surge ry

wa s pe rform e d a fte r our c ourt re m ande d this c a se to the tria l c ourt following Snow’ s first a ppe a l. OA Audio R e c ording a t 00:35–00:48. 2 Brow n v . Plata , 131 S. C t. 1910, 1928–29 (2011) (quoting C ruz v . Be to , 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972) (pe r c uriam )). 1m aking his sta tus a s a de at h row inm ate le ga lly irre le v ant: a fte r the sole issue be c am e whe the r de fe nda

nts ha d be e n indiffe re nt to Snow’ s ne e d for surge ry , his sta tus a s a de ath row

prisone r did nothing to m ake de fe nda

nts’ indiffe re nc e m ore or le ss proba

ble
. 3 Ove r de fe nse c ounse l ’ s obje c tion, thedistric t c o urt a llowe d the prose c utor to inform the jury of Snow’ s de ath row sta

tus, e xpla ining only

tha t Snow’ s sta

tus wa s

“ c o nte xt” or “ ba c kground.” The c ourt offe re d no furthe r e xpla nation, a nd none c an be gle ane d from the re c ord. Inde e d, in ora l a rgum e nt to our pa

ne l, e ve n c ounse l for the State c ould not m

uste r a pla usible answe r to the que stion: how did Snow’ s sta tus m ake any

fa c t at issue m o re or le ss like l y to be true ? 4 If Snow’ s de ath row sta

tus we re innoc uous, a

c ourt m ight a

ppropria t e ly
a dm it it a s “ b a c kground” or “ c onte xt,” m uc h a s a witne ss’ s na

m e , a g e or oc c upation. B ut Snow’ s sta tus is not innoc

uous. Thejury

did not ha

ve to be told that de ath row is re se rve d for the m ost e gre gious offe nde rs or tha t a ny dam a ge s awarde d Snow would bepa id to a m an a w a iting his e xe c ution. De fe nse c ounse l pre d ic ta b ly foc use d on Snow’ s sta

tus a s a de at h row prisone r, le a ding his c losing
argum e nt by

sa y ing: “ I’ ve got to te ll y ou I’ m a littleoffe nde d at

the notion tha

t a

3 Fe d. R . Evid. 401. 4 Se e OA Audio R e c ording a t 17:50–20:26, 25:36–27:25. 2de ath row prisone r c on m an c om e s be fore y ou . . . .”

W e ge ne ra lly

a fford wide disc re tion to a distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia

ry rulings, but disc re tion e nds whe re , a s he re , “ the re vie w e d de c ision lie s be y ond the pa le of
re a s ona ble justific ation.” 5 W ith no proba tive va l ue to support a dm itting e vide nc e of Snow’ s sta

tus, its pre

judic ia l we ight c l e arly

re quire d e xc lusion. 6 The m a jority fa ults de fe nse c ounse l for fa iling to re que st a c urative instruc tion, but tha t would only have re i n forc e d the pre

judic ia l nature of Snow’ s sta tus by highlighting it to the j ury . 7 Unde r the a

p plic a ble sta nda rd, the distric t c o urt’ s e rror wa s not ha rm le ss. Snow wa s dia gnose d in e arly 2006 with seve re de ge ne ra tive c ha n ge s in his hips. M ultiplephy sic ia

ns re c om m e nde d surge ry

during thefollowing thre e y e ars be fore the D e pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions fina lly a uthoriz e d it. The m e dic a l re c o rds re fle c t c are provide rs’ note s tha

t Snow “ c an ba

re ly wa lk,” tha

t “ [t] he re is no option he

re othe r tha n surge ry for re l ie f,” tha

t Snow’ s c ondition wa s a

n “ e m e rge nc y ,” and tha

t

5 Se e Harman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th C ir. 2000). 6 Fe d. R . Evid. 403. 7 Se e C

haffin v . Sty nc hc ombe , 412 U.S. 17, 41 (1973) (M arsha ll, J., disse nting) (re c ogniz ing tha t “ c urative instruc tions m ay se rve only to highlight the proble m ” ); B.K

.B. v . Maui Polic e De

p’t , 276 F.3d 1091, 1105–06 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [N] o m atte r what the instruc tion, it wa s im possible to dispe l the e ffe c t of [the ] lurid a nd pre judic ia l te stim ony . ” ). 3Snow’ s c re atinine le ve l s we re ra pidly inc re a sing be c a

use of the pa in m e dic ation he
wa s forc e d to ta

ke . During tha

t sa m e pe riod, the NDOC de nie d surge ry thre e tim e s. In light of this re c ord, I c annot sa y it is “m ore proba

ble tha n not thejury would ha ve re a c h e d the sa

m e ve rdic t” and would ha ve fa ile d to a

ward at le a st nom ina l da

m a ge s ha d it not known Snow wa s on de ath row. 8 For the s e re a sons, I would re ve rse and re m and for a ne w tria l. 9

8 Mic rosoft C

orp. v . Motorola, Inc
. , 795 F.3d 1024, 1052 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Estate

of Barabin v. Aste nJ

ohnson, Inc
. , 740 F.3d 457, 465 (9th C ir.), c e rt. de nie d , 135 S. C t. 55 (2014)).

9 Id. 4