Donald Dowell v. WILLIAM TODD GRIFFIN, Sergeant Team Police Officer, 4210

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD DOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM TODD GRIFFIN, Sergeant
Team Police Officer, # 4210; MATTHEW
BOTKIN, City of San Diego Police
Officer, # 5875; MATTHEW ZDUNICH,
City of San Diego Police Officer, # 5836,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55749
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-
MDD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2012**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we1
do not recount the facts here.
2
Donald Dowell appeals pro se various decisions of the district court
following an unfavorable jury verdict in his § 1983 action against three San Diego
police officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1
We review a court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Zhang
v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). We
likewise review a court’s granting or denying a request for a subpoena for abuse of
discretion. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d
1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2001).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendants’
evidentiary motions in limine. A district court may properly exclude evidence that
is not relevant to proving that party’s claims. See Nationwide Transport Finance v.
Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008); Wall Data
Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., 447 F.3d 769, 782 (9th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, reversal is not warranted because Dowell cannot show prejudice. See
Wall Data Inc., 447 F.3d at 783.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to subpoena Dowell’s
witnesses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not require a district court to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
subpoena a party’s witnesses in a civil proceeding. Moreover, Dowell was not
prejudiced by the district court’s failure to issue subpoenas.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --