NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEN SHEPPARD, an individual, No. 16-56622
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:15-cv-02920-SJO-JC
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a local MEMORANDUM*
public entity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 18, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,**
District Judge.
In this action, Ken Sheppard raises 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the
County of Los Angeles, Sergeant Booker Hollis of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, and Sheriff’s Deputies Tai Plunkett, Caroline Rodriquez, and Bonnie
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
Hanson.1 After the district court dismissed the claims against Hollis and the County,
the jury returned defense verdicts on Sheppard’s claims against Plunkett, Rodriquez,
and Hanson. On appeal, Sheppard challenges the district court’s denial of his request
to withdraw admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the formulation
of a jury instruction, and the denial of his summary judgment motion. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.2
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sheppard’s
belated motion to withdraw admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b).
The court reasonably found that Defendants relied on the admissions for nearly
seven months, would have been prejudiced at trial by having forgone discovery on
the admitted matters, and Sheppard failed to show good cause for his delay in
seeking relief. See Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621–25 (9th Cir. 2007);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in giving Jury Instruction
21, which stated that the jury “may” accept as true certain matters deemed admitted
1
Sheppard does not challenge the district court’s dismissal without prejudice
of his state law claims.
2
Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, Sheppard’s notice of appeal was not
defective under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) for lack of
specificity. Defendants received ample notice of the issues on appeal from
Sheppard’s opening brief and they fully responded to his arguments. See Le v.
Astrue, 558 F.3d 1019, 1022–24 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
because of Sheppard’s failure to timely respond to requests for admission. The bulk
of the admissions at issue concerned factual matters, and any admissions that
arguably pose legal conclusions only related to Sheppard’s dismissed state tort
claims or his alleged damages on the federal claims.
3. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Sheppard’s motion for
summary judgment. See Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018)
(citing Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 183–84 (2011)).
AFFIRMED.
3