FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS CLINTON, No. 14-56049
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04181-DOC-OP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. DE LA CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Thomas Clinton appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in Clinton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim arising from defendant’s alleged
refusal to assist Clinton in securing housing upon Clinton’s release from prison.
*
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).
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 because Clinton
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was
deliberately indifferent to Clinton’s post-release housing needs. See Leer v.
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that to prove deliberate
indifference, a plaintiff must show that the prison official’s “indifference was the
actual and proximate cause of the deprivation”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clinton’s motion for
dispositive sanctions because Clinton failed to show that defendant or defense
counsel withheld, altered or destroyed documents. See Ryan v. Editions Ltd. W.,
Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 759, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and
concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions
where spoliation was speculative).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clinton’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Clinton failed to demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement for
appointment of counsel).
2 14-56049
We affirm the award of costs to defendant because Clinton failed to file a
motion for the district court to review the clerk-approved bill of costs. See Walker
v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (a party waives the right to
challenge a cost award if the party does not file a timely motion for review of the
award).
Clinton’s motion for sanctions, filed on April 6, 2015, is denied. Clinton’s
request that oral argument be held in Pasadena, filed on May 12, 2015, is denied.
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56049