Case Name: Jesse WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FANNON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 429 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 09-17530
Parties: Jesse WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FANNON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
Jesse WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FANNON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17530.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 27, 2011.
Jesse Washington, Delano, CA, pro se.
Kenneth R. Williams, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and therefore denies Washington's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesse Washington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's evidentiary rulings. Tritchler v. Cnty. of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding witnesses who were not identified in Washington's original pretrial statement because the topics upon which he alleged they would testify were not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 ("Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible."). To the extent that Dr. Rosenberg's testimony may have been relevant, the district court properly exercised its discretion because the nature of that testimony should have been anticipated prior to the pretrial conference, and therefore should have been included in Washington's pretrial statement pursuant to the court's previous order. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.2002) ("'Trial courts have broad authority to impose reasonable time limits.' " (citation omitted)).
Contrary to Washington's contention, defendants were not judicially estopped from denying the use of excessive force based on testimony by another person in another case concerning different events. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining doctrine of judicial estoppel).
Washington's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.