Bryan Ransom v. A. Scribner , 473 F. App'x 729 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN EDWIN RANSOM, No. 11-16773
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00208-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. K. SCRIBNER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
Warden Scribner acted with deliberate indifference by not requiring the proper
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sanitization of barbering tools after use by each inmate. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Scribner because
Ransom failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Scribner
knew of any problems concerning the sanitization of barbering tools during the
relevant time period. See id. at 1057 (prison official acts with deliberate
indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
and safety); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (to establish a
supervisor’s liability under § 1983, an inmate must demonstrate that the official
“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to
act to prevent them”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ransom’s untimely
motion to extend the discovery deadline and for a continuance of summary
judgment. See Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100
(9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and continuance requirements);
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying request to extend discovery deadline
because moving party failed to show “good cause” to modify scheduling order).
2 11-16773
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ransom’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Ransom failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for
appointment of counsel).
Ransom’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Ransom’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16773