The Honorable C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the Middle District… v. SCOTT TOMPKINS Police Officer, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL,** District Judge.
Juan Solis-Diaz appeals the denial of his motion for new trial following a
jury verdict for Defendant-Appellee Scott Tompkins in Solis-Diaz’s 42 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
JUAN SOLIS-DIAZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT TOMPKINS Police Officer,
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-17186
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00619-JAD (GWF)
ORDER*
FILED
OCT 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
§ 1983 excessive force action against Tompkins. Solis-Diaz contends that the
district court erred in not granting him a new trial because defense counsel’s
improper vouching during his closing argument prejudiced Solis-Diaz by
impacting his right to a fair trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we dismiss Solis-Diaz’s appeal for failure to comply with Fed. R. App.
P. 10(b)(2).
“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is
unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must
include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or
conclusion.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). An appellant’s failure to provide the
relevant transcripts may require dismissal of the appeal. Syncom Capital Corp. v.
Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1991).
On appeal, Solis-Diaz argues that the trial transcript is unnecessary because
the procedural history of this case—the denial of summary judgment, the
affirmance of that denial on appeal, and Solis-Diaz’s acquittal on the related
criminal charges—establishes this was a close evidentiary case. Therefore, he
argues, the jury based its decision on credibility determinations which were
impacted by defense counsel’s improper vouching during closing argument, thus
prejudicing Solis-Diaz by adversely impacting his right to a fair trial.
We disagree; the trial transcript is necessary. Because Solis-Diaz failed to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
include a transcript of the trial, we cannot determine how the testimony and
evidence presented at trial affected the jury’s credibility determinations, and
therefore we are unable to decide if defense counsel’s statements actually caused
Solis-Diaz prejudice. Accordingly, we dismiss Solis-Diaz’s appeal for failure to
comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). See Wade, 924 F.2d at 169-70.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --