Keith Lavoie v. Russell Haynes
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Keith LaVoie (“LaVoie”) appeals an adverse jury verdict in his excessive force action brought against Officer Russell Haynes (“Haynes”) and the City of Mesa, Arizona (collectively, “Appellees”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , challenging the admission of certain evidence as a violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. We affirm.
While evidentiary rulings are typically reviewed for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1626 , 179 L.Ed.2d 500 (2011), objections not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error, United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1031 (9th Cir.2007); see also Fed.R.Evid. 103(e). Whether particular evidence comprises “other acts” so as to implicate Rule 404(b) is reviewed de novo. United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.1993) (citation omitted).
We have serious doubts as to whether LaVoie properly preserved any aspect of his evidentiary challenge. He failed to timely object at trial to most of the evidence now at issue. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). Compounding that error, his appellate briefs neglect to clearly present his arguments or to…