
    Curtis Clifford INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUINTANA, Deputy, #524044, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56454
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 1, 2017
    Curtis Clifford Ingram, Pro Se
    Rina Michelle Mathevosian, Esquire, Henry Patrick Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Quintana, Engle, Newhouse, Gonzalez
    Amber A. Logan, Attorney, Rina Michelle Mathevosian, Esquire, Henry Patrick Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees McDaniel, Thomas Spencep En-gle
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     