FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HOLMBERG, No. 12-36001
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05449-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELDON VAIL, Secretary DOC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Michael Holmberg appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant Sullivan unlawfully restricted his outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion discovery issues.
*
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).
United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Holmberg’s motion
to compel additional discovery or his request to continue defendants’ summary
judgment motion until he received additional discovery because Holmberg failed to
show how the additional discovery was necessary to defeat summary judgment.
See Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of
continuance to conduct further discovery appropriate when the district court
considers the merits of the motion and concludes that there is no point to pursuing
the requested discovery); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d
1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for obtaining additional discovery
under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
2002) (describing trial court’s broad discretion to deny a motion to compel).
We reject Holmberg’s contentions regarding the applicability of Garrett v.
City & County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1987), and the district
court’s revocation of his in forma pauperis status.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-36001