From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevenson v. Blake

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 19, 2016
648 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 13-56450

04-19-2016

GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREGORY BLAKE, Caliptria State Prison Locksmith, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00103-LAB-WVG MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson, 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 deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Mueller v. Auker, 700 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012) (denial of a motion for a new trial); Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 2011) (discovery sanctions), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stevenson's motion for a new trial because Stevenson failed to establish that defense counsel committed misconduct, and therefore did not present any basis for a new trial. See Mueller, 700 F.3d at 1193-94 ("The district court's denial of a motion for a new trial is reversible only if the record contains no evidence in support of the verdict or if the district court made a mistake of law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1192 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[W]e will not overrule a district court's ruling about the impact of counsel's alleged misconduct unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district did not abuse its discretion in denying Stevenson's motion for sanctions because the record demonstrates that defendant's failure to produce documents was not intentional. See Goodman, 644 F.3d at 822.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Stevenson v. Blake

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 19, 2016
648 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Stevenson v. Blake

Case Details

Full title:GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREGORY BLAKE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 19, 2016

Citations

648 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2016)