NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LON DERRICK CARTER, No. 15-15575
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-
BAM
v.
NICK DAWSON; KATHY MENDOZA- MEMORANDUM*
POWERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lon Derrick Carter appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with his conditions of confinement. We review de novo,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Carter failed
to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendants caused Carter to contract
a bacterial infection. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th
Cir. 2008) (“In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must . . . demonstrate that the
defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury.”).
The district court properly denied Carter’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion to
continue summary judgment to allow further discovery because Carter failed to
identify specific facts to be obtained in discovery that would have precluded
summary judgment. See Qualls By & Through Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc.,
22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review; district court
properly denied Rule 56(f) (now Rule 56(d)) motion where additional requested
discovery would not have precluded summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter’s motions to
strike the declarations of J. Buck and L. Hansen. See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v.
Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15575