jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. Ostad v. Oregon Health Sci Univ., 327 F.3d 876, 883 (9th Cir.2003) (jury instructions); Bell v. Clackamas Cty., 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir.2003) (judgment as a matter of law). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a jury instruction requiting Tomlin to establish that the defendants’ actions were intentional, particularly because the defendants’ testified at trial that their actions were intentional. Cf. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir.1997) The district court properly denied Tomlin’s motions for new trial and judgment as a matter of law because the jury’s verdict was properly supported by the law and evidence. See Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding defendant must demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that an inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must show an actual injury holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury