Bissell

MEMORANDUM **

Alan Bissell and Maureen Lee Bissell appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action and imposition of sanctions and costs against them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

A. Evidentiary Rulings

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of the bench trial to incidents alleged to have occurred on August 9, 1996; September 11, 1996; and September 16, 2006. See Payne v. Norwest Corp., 185 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1999) (“We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless prejudice is shown.”). The Bissells failed to provide any evidence identifying individuals involved in incidents alleged to have occurred on other dates and therefore failed to demonstrate that evidence regarding those other incidents was relevant. See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402.

The “Alert” purportedly issued by the United States Forest Service (“USFS”), the Fletcher “memorandum,” and the proposed testimony regarding Kim West Deist’s purported investigation of William Eisentraut, did not clearly or directly relate to the incidents that allegedly occurred on the three dates at issue at trial, and…