Leon Sabra Blatt v. Pete Shove;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON SABRA BLATT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PETE SHOVE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35583
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01711-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Leon Sabra Blatt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
arising from an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-35583
Venegas v. Wagner, 831 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Blatt’s motion for a
new trial because Blatt did not show clear and convincing evidence that the verdict
was obtained through perjury or that defense counsel’s conduct prevented Blatt
from fully and fairly presenting his defense. See Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000) (a motion for a new
trial may be granted on the basis of false or perjurious evidence); Wharf v.
Burlington Northern R. Co., 60 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth the
standard for granting a motion for a new trial due to “fraud, misrepresentation, or
other misconduct”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --