Robert Woodroffe v. Jill Curtis ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 19 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT CRAIG WOODROFFE, No. 18-35996
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02390-SB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JILL CURTIS; PEDRO, Captain;
IVERSON, Captain; LYTLE, Captain; K.
SHORT; SHELTON, Doctor; R. A.
YOUNG, Lieutenant; D. GREEN;
MICHEAL JORDEN,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
STATE OF OREGON; ELLEN
ROSENBLUM; SHANNON M.
VINCENT; VICTOR BEERBOWER;
COLETTE S. PETERS; MICHAEL F.
GOWER; GREG JONES; ERICA SAGE;
MARK NOOTH; JERI TAYLOR; JOHN
MYRICK; LINDA SCHUTT;
ENRIGNES, Lieutenant; BOSTON,
Lieutenant; EDISION, Lieutenant;
PRIMMER, Sergeant; RANSIER,
Correctional Officer; HILLMICK; R.
KRUEGER; MICHAEL MAHONY;
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
MARTIN; NORTON, Doctor; JAMES
DEACON; WILSEN; LEONARD
WILLIAMSON; HAGA, Sergeant;
HOSKINS; T. RIDLEY; DWAYNE
GREEN; MCMILLIN, Lieutenant;
STEWART, Lieutenant,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges
Plaintiff Robert Woodroffe appeals the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his prisoner civil rights action.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014), and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by extending the summary
judgment deadline after it had expired. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d
1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that excusable neglect “covers cases of
negligence, carelessness and inadvertent mistake” by counsel).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Plaintiff argues that he was denied discovery. However, he has not
identified what discovery he was denied or how he was prejudiced. See Hallett v.
Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review for
discovery rulings and holding that we affirm, unless the plaintiff makes “the
clearest showing” of “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of
discovery).
Plaintiff waived the claims dismissed from the Third Amended Complaint
with leave to amend when he declined to amend the claims. First Resort, Inc. v.
Herrera, 860 F.3d 1263, 1274 (9th Cir. 2017).
The district court properly dismissed the unexhausted Eighth Amendment
and First Amendment retaliation claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring that
prisoners exhaust their available administrative remedies); McKinney v. Carey, 311
F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that claims must be
completely exhausted before a prisoner files his action).
Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the remaining First
Amendment retaliation claims. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants lacked
legitimate correctional reasons for their actions, he suffered adverse actions, and/or
a link between specific protected activities and the actions. See Watison v. Carter,
3
668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a First
Amendment retaliation claim).
Plaintiff waived his remaining claims in his opening brief. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues listed,
but not discussed in the body of the opening brief, have been waived).
AFFIRMED.
4