Bhupat R. Bhatti v. Seleena Ulahannan

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).
The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for***
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPAT R. BHATTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SELEENA ULAHANNAN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17408
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00754-WBS-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District
Judge.***
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Appellant Bhupat R. Bhatti appeals the district court’s exclusion of three
pieces of evidence during an eleven-day jury trial. Bhatti brought the underlying
civil action alleging that Sacramento County social worker Seleena Ulahannan
violated Bhatti’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when she drove Bhatti’s son from his home to a family
shelter on August 29, 2003. The jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of
Ulahannan, finding the child was not removed under color of law, but simply to
accommodate the mother’s decision to leave the residence.
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, General Elec. Co.
v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1997), and we do not reverse evidentiary rulings
unless the rulings are “manifestly erroneous and prejudicial.” Orr v. Bank of Am.,
285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original). As the parties are
familiar with the facts, we repeat them here only as necessary to explain our
decision. We consider each piece of evidence separately.
(1) Information related to Ulahannan’s immigration: Bhatti argues that the
facts surrounding Ulahannan’s 1997 immigration should have been admitted to
demonstrate that the social worker had committed immigration fraud. The district
court excluded the evidence as overly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence
403.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The district court is “not required to engage in a mechanical recitation of
Rule 403’s formula on the record as long as it appears from the record as a whole
that the trial judge adequately weighed the probative value and prejudicial effect of
proffered evidence before its admission.” Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621 F.3d
1116, 1131 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations and markings omitted). Citing Rule
403, the district court determined that “while an argument could be made that
[information related to Ulahannan’s immigration is] somehow relevant . . . that is
pretty remote. And the major concern would be that the jury wouldn’t consider it
for that more remote purpose, but would consider it for the purpose of character
evidence against Ms. Ulahannan.” The court also noted that allowing the evidence
would effectively require a mini-trial within a trial and likely confuse the jury. See
Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). There is no manifest error in the district court’s reasoning
and no abuse of its discretion.
(2) The Sacramento County family court’s June 2004 temporary order and
factual findings: The district court determined the records were irrelevant and
hearsay. Courts do not generally take notice of other courts’ factual findings for
the purpose of asserting them as truth. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 n.5
(9th Cir. 2003). The district court correctly determined that factual findings made
during Bhatti’s divorce proceedings the following year were irrelevant to the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
question whether Ulahannan’s actions on August 29, 2003, violated his
constitutional rights. The decision to exclude this evidence was not manifestly
erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
(3) The DVD: The DVD in question was filmed in 2004 by Bhatti’s brother
one year after the incident in question. The district court did not abuse its
discretion when it excluded the evidence because it lacked context and relevance
and was too far removed from the events of August 29, 2003.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --