NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELDON JAY BENNETT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

TWO RIVERS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; L. IVERSON; P. DAY; L. BRAUN; T. RIDLEY; C. HARRIS; D. SANDERS; POLLARD, Cpl.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 35728

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 00347

- MO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 4 , 2021 * * San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Eldon Jay Bennett, Jr. appeals the dist rict court’s grant of summary

judgment for various staff members of Two Rivers Correctional Institution.

* 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). 

# FILED

AUG 6 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Gas Co. , 270

F.3d 778
, 782 (9 th Cir. 2001).

Claims one and two are time

- barred bec ause a two

- year statute of limitations

applies, the alleged incidents took place in 2015, and Bennett did not file his

complaint until February of 2018. See Sain v. City of Bend , 309 F.3d 1134, 1139

(9th Cir. 2002) (holding that Oregon claims brought unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are
subject to a two

- year statute of limitations)

. Bennett argues that these claim s
should be treated as ongoing violation s together with the acts alleged in claim

three, which is not time

- barred. That argument is foreclosed by Nat’l R.R.

Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)

. See Carpinteria Valley Farms,

Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara , 344 F.3d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 2003) (“ W e have

applied Morgan to bar § 1983 claims predicated on discrete time

- barred acts,

notwithstanding that those acts are related to timely

- filed claims.”)

.
As to claim three , Bennett argues that the district court erred in holding that

he failed to allege the personal involvement of any named defendant. Bennett

argues s pecifically that the district court should have treated his grievances as part

of his pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c). But Bennett did not

attach the grievances as an exhibit, and Rule 10(c) only provides that a “copy of a

written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all

purposes.” Fed

. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 10(c)(emphasis added). Bennett also argues3

that he should have been allowed to add defendants to cure this pleading error , but

when he attempted to do so in the district court, he did not comply with the local

rules and did not correct his error when given the opportunity to do so.

Bennett also argues that the district court abused its discretion in staying

discovery pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment

. B ut Bennett
did not object to the stay in the district court, nor did he make the necessary

showing for further discovery. See State of Cal., on Behalf of California D ep’t of

Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell , 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding

that a court may continue a summary judgment motion upon a showing by the

opposing party that certain discoverable facts exist and are essential to defending

against summary judgment).

AFFIRMED.