Ingram v. Quintana, 060117 FED9, 15-56454
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
|Judge Panel:||Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Party Name:||CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUINTANA, Deputy, #524044, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||June 01, 2017|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 24, 2017 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09428-DOC-OP
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Curtis Clifford Ingram, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendants in Ingram's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Ingram waived his challenge to the admissibility of the prior conviction evidence by introducing the evidence at trial, after he previously failed on a motion in limine to exclude it. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) ("A party's preemptive use of evidence at trial before its introduction by the opposing party constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence on appeal.").
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
We reject as without merit Ingram's contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP