N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ODNEY LOUIS GAR

R OTT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOHN/JANE DOE, (B -Unit); e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-35804 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00133-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 W a shington Stanle y Alle n B a stia n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r R odne y

Louis Ga rrott 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 de nia l of his right to ac c e ss the c ourts. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Tatum v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 441 F.3d 1090, 1094



# FIL ED APR 20 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).n.3 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Ga rrott 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

nts’ a c t ions c a

use d the d ism issa l of Ga

rrott’ s prior c a se . Se eSilv a v . Di Vittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1102- 04 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc ussing re quire m e nts for a n a c c e s s-to-c ourt c la im

pre m ise d on prison offic i a ls’ a lle ge d inte rfe re nc e , a s oppose d to a ffirm ative a ssista nc e , with any prisone r la

wsuit), ov e rrule d

on othe r grounds as state d by Ric he y v . Dahne , 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th C ir. 2015). M ore ove r, Garrott’ s a ppe a l in his prior c a se wa s de c ide d on them e rits, a nd thus Ga

rrott fa ile d to ra ise a

ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he suffe re d a n a c t ua l injury . Se eid. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ga rrott’ s m otions to c om pe l be c a use the de nia l of the m otions did not re sult in a c tua l a nd substa ntia l pre j udic e , a s the disc o v e ry

he sought would not pre

ve nt sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Halle t t v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w for de nia l of m otion to c om pe l disc ove ry and e xpla ining tha t tria l c ourt’ s broa d disc re tion to deny disc ove ry “ will not be

disturbe d e xc e pt upon thec le are st showing tha

t [the ] de nia l of disc ove ry re sult[e d] in a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre judic e to the c om

pla ining litiga

nt” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ga rrott’ s m otion for

1 4 - 3 5 8 0 4 2a

c ontinua nc e of sum

m ary judgm e nt so he c ould c onduc t furthe r disc ove ry be c a use Garrott fa ile d to c a

rry his burde n to “proffe r suffic i e nt fa c ts to show tha t the e vide nc e sought e x ists, a

nd tha t it would preve nt sum

m ary judgm e nt.” C

hanc ev . Pac -Te l Te le tracInc . , 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th C i r. 2001); se ealso Tatum , 441 F.3d a

t 1100 (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie w). M ore ove r, the re c ord re fle c ts that the distric t c ourt gra

nte d Ga rrott two e xte nsions to c onduc t disc ove ry . Garrott’ s re que sts, file d on Nove m be r 7, 2014 a

nd Fe brua

ry 25, 2016, a

re de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 5 8 0 4 3