George Jacobs, IV v. J. Masiel

MEMORANDUM

George E. Jacobs, IV appeals from the district court’s judgments entered in this civil rights action. Jacobs makes three assignments of error. He claims the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to subpoena documents and his request to recall Defendant Martinez for impeachment, and erred in instructing the jury regarding his excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012). Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.

1. District court rulings concerning discovery issues are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kulas v. Flores, 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir.2001). “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir.2012). In light of Jacobs’s lack of diligence through out the eight-month discovery period, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to re-open discovery. See Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir.1990). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by evaluating…