
    Donald DOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Todd GRIFFIN, Sergeant Team Police Officer, #4210; Matthew Botkin, City of San Diego Police Officer, # 5875; Matthew Zdunich, City of San Diego Police Officer, #5836, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-55749.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 12, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2013.
    Donald Dowell, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Brian D. Murphy, Esquire, San Diego City Attorney’s Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald Dowell appeals pro se various decisions of the district court following an unfavorable jury verdict in his § 1983 action against three San Diego police officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review a court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir.2003). We likewise review a court’s granting or denying a request for a subpoena for abuse of discretion. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendants’ eviden-tiary motions in limine. A district court may properly exclude evidence that is not relevant to proving that party’s claims. See Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2008); Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., 447 F.3d 769, 782 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, reversal is not warranted because Dowell cannot show prejudice. See Wall Data Inc., 447 F.3d at 783.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to subpoena Dowell’s witnesses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not require a district court to subpoena a party’s witnesses in a civil proceeding. Moreover, Dowell was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to issue subpoenas.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we do not recount the facts here.
     