NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGER WILLIAM HULL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
KATHRYN REYNOLDS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15055

D.C. No. 3:15

- cv

- 00348

- RCJ

- VPC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Roger William Hull appeals pro se from the d istrict

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

claims related to constant illumination . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Grenning v. Miller

- Stout , 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th

* 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). 

# F ILED

AUG 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15055

Cir. 2014 ). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hull failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately

indifferent by using excessive light in his prison dormitory , resulting in migraines

.
See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be
found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmat e humane
conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive

ris k to inmate health or safety . . .

. ”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hull’s Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(d) motion s for a stay and request f o r discovery because Hull failed to

demonstrate that the discovery he requested would have precluded summary judgment. See Getz v. Boeing Co. , 654 F .3d 852, 867

- 68 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that a plaintiff must show that the
discovery sought would have precluded summary judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in not consider ing Dr.
Lockley’s affidavit because such evidence would not defeat summary judgment.
See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (standa rd of

review for district court’ s rulings concerning admissibility of evidence on
summary judgment ).
We reject as without merit Hull’s contentions t hat the district court erred in3 17

- 15055

considering a ppellees’ light test evidence, denying Hull’s motion for san ctions , finding that its screening order allowed only one condition of confinement claim to
proceed , and allowing defendants to change their defense

.
We do not consider Hull’s allegations that were not raised in the opera tive
complaint, including his allegations that prison officials recently installed new
lights, that additional lights are now lit all day , and that he now suffers from sleep
deprivation

. These new allegations must be raised in a separate action.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
AFFIRMED.