CURTIS INGRAM V. QUINTANA, No. 15-56454 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 1 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56454 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09428-DOC-OP v. MEMORANDUM* QUINTANA, Deputy, #524044, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Curtis Clifford Ingram, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendants in Ingram’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Ingram waived his challenge to the admissibility of the prior conviction evidence by introducing the evidence at trial, after he previously failed on a motion in limine to exclude it. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A party’s preemptive use of evidence at trial before its introduction by the opposing party constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence on appeal.”). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). We reject as without merit Ingram’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-56454

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.