736 Fed.Appx. 182 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-36042, Soule v. City of Edmonds
|Citation:||736 Fed.Appx. 182|
|Party Name:||Sheldon Lawrence SOULE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF EDMONDS; City of Edmonds Police Department; The Taste of Edmonds; Officer Dave Machado, #1015; Officer Jason Robinson, #2715; Officer Ken Ploeger, #1106; Officer Josh McClure, #1879; Officer Justin Lee, #2269; Officer Ryan Speer, #2610; Officer Mike Richardson, #1104; Chief of Police Al ...|
|Attorney:||Sheldon Lawrence Soule, Pro Se Mark R. Bucklin, Attorney, Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||September 04, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted August 30, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Sheldon Lawrence Soule, Pro Se
Mark R. Bucklin, Attorney, Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01221-TSZ
Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Sheldon Soule appeals pro se from the district courts judgment in favor of the defendants after a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Soule waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurys verdict by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial before the district court. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, a party must file both a pre-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial under Rule 50(b) ).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Soules legal experience and post-arrest conduct or in excluding evidence relating to defendants employment or litigation history. See Fed.R.Evid. 401-03; see also Tritchler v. County of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP