Jeremy Jones v. Chen

Ninth Circuit

Jeremy Jones v. Chen

675 F. App'x 786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2017

Docket15-16653

StatusUnpublished

This text of 675 F. App'x 786 (Jeremy Jones v. Chen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeremy Jones v. Chen, 675 F. App'x 786 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jeremy Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant in Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings and reverse only when an erronéous evidentiary ruling is prejudicial. Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court excluded the document that Jones sought 'to use only for impeachment on the basis that it had not been disclosed previously. However, “impeachment evidence does not have to be revealed in pretrial disclosures.” Id.) see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(ii) (requiring disclosure of documents used to support claims or defenses, unless use would be solely for impeachment). Nevertheless, the erroneous evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal because the jury’s verdict on each of Jones’s claims was supported by evidence other than defendant’s unim-peached testimony. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudice); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (prejudice requires conclusion that “more probably than not,” the error tainted the verdict).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Jeremy Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant in Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings and reverse only when an erronéous evidentiary ruling is prejudicial. Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court excluded the document that Jones sought 'to use only for impeachment on the basis that it had not been disclosed previously. However, “impeachment evidence does not have to be revealed in pretrial disclosures.” Id.) see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(ii) (requiring disclosure of documents used to support claims or defenses, unless use would be solely for impeachment). Nevertheless, the erroneous evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal because the jury’s verdict on each of Jones’s claims was supported by evidence other than defendant’s unim-peached testimony. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudice); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (prejudice requires conclusion that “more probably than not,” the error tainted the verdict).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 F. App'x 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-jones-v-chen-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack