Mendez

MEMORANDUM **

Hugo Mendez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. See McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1160 , 124 S.Ct. 1169 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1204 (2004). Because the district court properly denied Mendez’s motion for a new trial, we affirm.

A.

Mendez argues that the clear weight of the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that Gray was not acting under color of law at the time he fired his weapon. We will reverse the district court’s denial of a new trial on insufficiency of the evidence grounds only if “ ‘the record contains no evidence in support of the verdict.’ ” Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 , 1189-90 (9th Cir.2002)). We conclude that the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence in the record.

“[A] defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he abuses *592 the position given to him by the State. Thus, generally, a public employee acts under color of state law while acting in his…