Willie Randle v. L. Franklin

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Willie D. Ran-dle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial and its order denying his motion for a new trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Randle’s motion for a new trial because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. See Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir.2001) (“Substantial evidence is evidence adequate to sup- ' port the jury’s conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion from the same evidence.”); see also id. .(when the jury is presented with conflicting testimony, we “must disregard evidence favorable to [plaintiff] that the jury is not required to believe” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Randle’s request to question or disqualify a juror for alleged bias…