Case Name: James BAILEY, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY, a Municipal Corp.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 548 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 12-35990
Parties: James BAILEY, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY, a Municipal Corp.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
James BAILEY, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY, a Municipal Corp.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-35990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2013.
Filed Dec. 6, 2013.
Julie A. Anderson, Law Offices of Julie A. Anderson, Wenatchee, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Daniel J. Bugbee, Garvey Schubert Barer, Mark R. Johnsen, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff James Bailey appeals the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Defendants Mike Lamon and Lee Risdon ("Defendants"), two Che-lan County Sheriff deputies. We affirm.
1. Bailey argues that the district court erred by failing to give his Proposed Jury Instruction No. 3. The proposed instruction elaborated on the definition of "actively resisting" as that term is used in the excessive force instruction given by the district court. We disagree. There was no error in the district court's jury instruction on the elements of Bailey's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction No. 9.22. The district court's instruction allowed Bailey's counsel to argue her theory of the case. See Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir.2000). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to give Bailey's proposed instruction defining "actively resisting."
2. Bailey also argues that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of two of his treating physicians, Drs. Wall and Travers. Even assuming that the district court erred or abused its discretion in excluding the doctors' testimony, the error was harmless. See Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1176 (9th Cir.1986) opinion amended on denial ofreh'g sub nom. In re Yagman, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir.1986). First, there was no dispute that the officers used force to arrest Bailey, and second, the jury's special verdict found that the officers did not use excessive force.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.