N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THOM AS C LINTON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R . DE LA C R

UZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56049 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-04181-DOC -OP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 26, 2016 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd PAEZ, C i rc u it Judge s. Form e r C a lifornia

sta te prisone r Thom a s C linton a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in C linton’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging a n Eighth Am e ndm e nt de l ibe rate indiffe re nc e c la i m arising from

de fe nda nt’ s a lle ge d re fusa l to a ssist C l inton in se c uring housing upon C l inton’ s re le a se from prison. 

# FIL ED M AY02 2016 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 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).W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v .

C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use C l inton fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nt wa s de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to C linton’ s post-re le a se housing ne e ds. Se e Le e r v . Murphy , 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th C ir. 1988) (e xpla i ning tha t to provede libe rate indiffe re nc e , a

pla intiff m

ust show tha

t the prison offic ia l’ s “ indiffe re nc e wa s the a c tua l a nd proxim ate c a

use of the de priva

tion” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C l inton’ s m otion for dispositive

sa nc tions be c a

use C linton faile d to show tha t de fe nda nt or de fe n se c ounse l withhe ld, a l te re d or de stroy e d doc um e nts. Se eRy an v . Editions Ltd. W ., Inc . , 786 F.3d 754, 759, 766 (9th C ir. 2015) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd c onc luding tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing sa nc tions whe re spolia

tion wa s spe c ulative ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C l inton’ s m otion for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use C linton faile d to de m onstra te e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s re quire m e nt for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). 1 4 - 5 6 0 4 9 2W e a ffirm the award of c osts to de fe n da nt be c a use C linton fa ile d

to file a m otion for thedistric t c ourt to re vie w the c le rk-a pprove d bill of c osts. Se eW alk e r v . C alifornia , 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th C ir. 1999) (a pa rty wa ive s the right to c ha lle nge a

c ost a ward if thepa

rty doe s not filea tim e ly

m o tion for re vie w of the award). C linton’ s m otion for sa

nc tions, file d on April 6, 2015, is de nie d. C linton’ s re que s t tha

t ora l a rgum e nt be he ld in Pa sa de na , file d on M ay 12, 2015, is denie d. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 6 0 4 9 3