N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FERDINAND REYNOLDS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DR . KIRK GER STEL, D.D.S., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17197 D.C . No. 1:09-c v-00680-SAB
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 Stan le y A. B oone , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SC HEINDLIN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Fe rdina nd R e ynolds a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for a
c ontinua nc e . W e a ffirm . As thefa c t s a nd proc e d ura l history

are fam ilia

r to the pa rtie s , we do not re c ite the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our disposition. 

# FIL ED D EC 07 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Shira Ann Sc he i ndlin, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by

de s igna tion.W e re vie w the de c ision to deny a re que st for a

c o ntinua nc e for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . K loe hn , 620 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th C ir. 2010). To de te rm i ne if the distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion, we c onside r four fa c tors e sta blishe d in Unite d State

s v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th C ir. 1985): 1. “ [t] he e xte nt of a

ppe lla nt’ s dilige nc e in his e fforts to re a dy his de fe nse prior to thedate se t for he aring” ; 2. “ [h] ow like ly

it is tha t the ne e d for a

c ontinua nc e c ould ha

v e be e n m e t if the c ontinua

nc e ha d be e n gra

nte d” ; 3. “ [t] he e xte nt to whic h gra nting thec ontinua

nc e would ha

ve inc onve nie n c e d the c ourt a nd the opposing pa

rty , inc luding its witne sse s” ; 4. “ [t] he e xte nt to whic h the a ppe l la nt m ight ha

v e suffe re d

ha rm a s a re s ult of thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l.” The te s t is not “m e c ha

nic a l,” but a

n a p pe lla nt m ust, a t m inim um , show pre

j udic e in orde r to suc c e e d. K

loe hn , 620 F.3d a

t 1127. In de ny ing them otion, thedistric t c ourt found tha t prison c orre c tion offic e rs gave R e ynolds “ am

ple opportunity” to re trie v e his le ga l m ate ria l s “both pe rsona lly
and the offic e r a gre e d to ge t it for him ” be fore the y

tra nsporte d R e y

nolds to c ourt. R e ynolds de c line d the se opportunitie s to c olle c t his le ga l m ate ria ls be c a

use he be lie ve d tha

t unde r C a lifornia

la w he wa s e ntitle d to re trie ve both his persona l a nd le ga l prope rty

whe n be ing tra

nsporte d to c ourt. The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t, e ve n if he wa s c orre c t , R e y nolds pla c e d “ form ove r substa nc e ” whe n he re fuse d the

2opportunity

to re trie ve only

his le ga l m ate ria ls, a

n d this re fusa l c o nstitute d “ a wa ive r [of the ir use ] by

the pla i ntiff.” The re is no c l e ar e rror in the s e fa c tua l findings, a nd a s suc h the y

are dispositive . R e ynolds c hose not to bring his le ga l m ate ria ls with him to tria l a nd be c a use of this de c ision a

ny re sulting pre

judic e wa s of his own doing. In a ny e ve nt, R e ynolds ha s fa i le d to a rtic ulate how his m ate ria ls would ha ve a ide d him

in
ove rc o m ing thete stim o ny of num e rous e xpe rt witne sse s pre se nte d by Ge rste l. While the inc onve nie nc e to thec ourt would ha ve be e n m inor a

nd a c ontinua nc e sure ly would ha v e be e n use ful in a l lowing Re ynolds to c olle c t his le g a l m at e ria ls, R e ynolds ha s not de m onstra te d e ithe r dilige n c e or pre judic e . For the se re a sons, wec onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a
c ontinua nc e wa s not a

n a buse of disc re t ion. AFFIRM E D.

3