22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b8,MEMORANDUM Michael W. Hudson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We dismiss. We cannot review the district court’s judgment because Hudson has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. On May 10, 2012, this court denied Hudson’s request for production of transcripts at the government’s expense without prejudice to renewal, accompanied by a showing as to which portions of the transcript were necessary to decide the issues presented. Hudson did not renew his motion. Accordingly, we are unable to review his contentions challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings and denial of Hudson’s new trial motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per cu-riam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e5,

MEMORANDUM

Michael W. Hudson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We dismiss.

We cannot review the district court’s judgment because Hudson has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. On May 10, 2012, this court denied Hudson’s request for production of transcripts at the government’s expense without prejudice to renewal, accompanied by a showing as to which portions of the transcript were necessary to decide the issues presented. Hudson did not renew his motion. Accordingly, we are unable to review his contentions challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings and denial of Hudson’s new trial motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per cu-riam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.