FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CALVIN ROUSE, AKA Abdur Rashid No. 11-35200
Khalif,
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05655-RBL
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
RON VAN BOENING; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Calvin Rouse, a.k.a. Abdur Rashid Khalif,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d
1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiff
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of his claims. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);
see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996) (access to court); Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (due process); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,
884, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (free exercise and RLUIPA); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d
802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (retaliation).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion
to quash defendant Van Boening’s deposition. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A district court is vested with broad
discretion to permit or deny discovery. . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue
defendants’ summary judgment motion until plaintiff could conduct additional
discovery because plaintiff failed to identify the specific facts that additional
discovery would have revealed or how those facts would have been essential to
defeat the summary judgment motion. See California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic
2 11-35200
Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing
for an abuse of discretion and setting forth relevant factors).
Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35200