Sir Giorgio Clardy v. Garth Gulick ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, No. 18-35826
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00503-CL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GARTH GULICK, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a ruling
*
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).
on a motion to strike. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Gemini Mgmt., 921 F.2d 241,
244 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Clardy’s motion to
strike because the answer was timely served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (the
district court may modify the time by which any act required by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is due); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1) (discussing time limits for
filing responsive pleadings); Tindall v. First Solar Inc., 892 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2018) (the district court may grant motions for an extension of time upon a
finding of good cause).
We do not consider matters, including the basis for summary judgment, not
specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and
allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983,
985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-35826