Porio v. Barbari

── Porio v. Barbari ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAWN R. PORIO, No. 25-1294 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 8:22-cv-00812-RGK-ADS v. MEMORANDUM* RN YVETTE BARBARI, Orange County Nurses, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Officer IRINEO FLORES, No. 1392, Officer E. URIAS, No. 1324, Officer CHRISTOPHER PETERSON, No. 1359, Officer HAYDEN NEWMAN, No. 1341, Officer MICHAEL WAGNER, No. 1313, BRENT PARDOEN, OCFA No. 6933, DAVID PHELAN, OCFA No. 6828, JOSEPH WINGERT, Jr., OCFA No. 6959, TED HWANG, OCFA No. 6959, RN JENNIFER MAYA, Orange County Nurses, DOES 1-10, Defendants. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO, District Judge.** Plaintiff Shawn Porio brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Orange County (“the County”) and Yvette Barbari after he was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, when his erratic driving was actually caused by a stroke.1 The jail intake medical screening conducted by Barbari, a nurse employed by the County, failed to identify that Porio was experiencing a medical emergency, and he was admitted to the jail. Porio was in custody for over 20 hours before County jail staff sent him to the hospital. During that time, he experienced at least one more stroke. Porio alleges that, as a result of the delay in treatment, he suffered permanent brain damage from the strokes. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, and the claim against Barbari proceeded to trial. A first trial ended in a mistrial, with an evenly ** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Porio’s First Amended Complaint originally included claims against other defendants and an ADA claim. Those claims were dismissed and are not at issue in this appeal. 2 25-1294 divided jury. The second trial ended in a verdict for Barbari. Porio appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County, and the post-trial judgment for Barbari. He challenges some evidentiary rulings as well as the three hour per side time limit on the examination of witnesses that the district court imposed during the second trial against Barbari. “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2021). “A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will not be reversed ‘unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous.’” Sidibe v. Sutter Health, 103 F.4th 675, 691 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1997)). We review “issues relating to the management of trial for an abuse of discretion.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995). 1. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, reasoni