Russell A. Tinsley v. Lomax, Correctional Officer Cunningham, Correctional Officer

33 F.3d 59 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Russell A. TINSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOMAX, Correctional Officer; Cunningham, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-15662. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 13, 1994. * Decided Aug. 16, 1994. Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Russell A. Tinsley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se following an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights case. He contends that the district court erred (1) in excluding a certain incident report prepared by prison officials; (2) in refusing to allow certain witnesses to testify; (3) in denying Tinsley's request for a continuance to secure counsel; (4) in instructing the jury on excessive force; and (5) in denying his motion for a new trial following an allegedly inconsistent jury verdict. We affirm. I. 3 On February 4, 1987, Tinsley, an inmate at California State Prison,…