139 F. 3d 904 - Earnest A. Darden v. Berkeley City, Berkeley Police Department

MEMORANDUM*

Earnest A. Darden appeals pro se the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of City of Berkeley police officers in Darden's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1472 (9th Cir.1994). Because Mr. Jung did not reside in the United States, and his written statements were admissible, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Jung's statements. See 28 U.S.C. § 1783(a); Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). Because Darden failed to show that Mrs. Jung's hearsay statements were admissible, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding her statements. See Fed.R.Evid. 802. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of other complaints against Rodriguez. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 387, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Finally, because the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering subpoenas for only those witnesses whom Darden showed to be relevant, and Darden did not show prejudice, Darden's contention that the district court failed to assist him in subpoenaing witnesses lacks merit. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a), 104(a), 401, 402, 403.

To analyze Darden's remaining contentions regarding the trial, we would need to review the trial transcripts. Because Darden has failed to produce the transcripts, we decline to consider the contentions.1 See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Portland Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787, 789-90 (9th Cir.1989).

We deny Darden's requests for sanctions. We have reviewed Darden's remaining contentions and determine that they lack merit.

AFFIRMED.