FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON BULLOCKS, Jr., No. 10-16609
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00542-RLH-
GWF
v.
CITY OF LAS VEGAS DETENTION MEMORANDUM *
CENTER and KAREN COYNE, Chief
Director, City of Las Vegas Detention
Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Leon Bullocks, Jr., a former detainee at the City of Las Vegas Detention
Center, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1983 action alleging that he suffered health problems from poor ventilation in his
unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
decision to grant summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2006), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Bullocks’s deliberate indifference claim was proper
because he failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants consciously
disregarded an excessive risk to his health where the evidence showed that they
responded to his complaints, prescribed him medicine, and granted his request for a
transfer to a new unit. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (setting forth standard for
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim); Carnell, 74 F.3d at 979 (noting
that pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim is
analyzed under the same standard as such a claim under the Eighth Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bullocks’s motions
to compel discovery because he failed to serve any proper or timely discovery
requests. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). To the extent
that Bullocks sought a continuance of the summary judgment motion to conduct
discovery and amend his opposition, the request was properly denied because
Bullocks failed to show that he “diligently pursued” prior discovery opportunities
2 10-16609
or that allowing additional discovery would “preclude[] summary judgment.”
Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16609