N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C OLUM B US ALLEN, Jr.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C HEUNG, DDS,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-15283 D.C . No. 1:09-c v-00930-AW I-JLT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. C olum bus Alle n, Jr., a

form e r pre tria l de ta ine e , a ppe a ls pro sefrom the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing
c onstitutiona

lly ina de quate de nta l c are during his pre tria l de te ntion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 

# FIL ED JAN 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the
re c o rd. J ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc areSy

s ., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. Although the distric t c ourt fa ile d to a ddre ss e xplic itly Alle n’ s Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(d) re que st for a dditional disc ove ry , the de nia l of the re que st wa s not e rror be c a use Alle n fa ile d to show tha t the disc ove ry

he re q ue ste d would ha

ve pre c lude d
sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Ge tz v . Boe ing C o. , 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th C ir. 2002) (e xpla ining tha

t a pla intiff m

ust show tha

t the disc ove ry

sought would ha

ve pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt); Margolis v. Ry a n , 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th C ir. 1998) (sta nda rd of re v i e w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Alle n ’ s m otions for
a ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Alle n fa ile d to de m onstra te e xc e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s . Se eC

ano v . Tay lor , 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th C ir. 2014) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nts for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l). De nia l of Alle n’ s re que st re ga rding thede position notic e wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion be c a

use Alle n fa ile d to show a ny ha rm from the fa ilure to disc lose the
re c o rding m e thod. Se eHalle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C i r. 2002) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand e xpla ining tha t distric t c o urt’ s disc ove ry rulings “w ill not be disturbe d e xc e pt upon thec le a re st showing tha

t de nia l of

1 5
- 1 5 2 8 3 2disc ove ry

re sults in ac tua l a

n d substa ntia l pre judic e to thec om

pla ining litiga

nt” (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks omitte d)). C ontra ry to Alle n ’ s c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to strike

C he ung’ s e vide nc e on the ground tha t it wa s untim e l y disc lose d
. W e re je c t a s m e ritle ss Alle n ’ s c onte ntions of denia l of e q ua l prote c tion a

nd due proc e ss, a

n d bia s. Alle n’ s re que sts for c ounse l, file d on July 13, 2015 a

nd se t forth in his ope ning brie f, are de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 5 2 8 3 3