N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KENNETH HIB B LER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JULIE R EXW INKEL; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16552 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00067-LRHVPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Form e r Ne va da

sta te prisone r Ke nne t

h Hibble r a

p pe a ls pro se from 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 re ta lia tion a nd de l ibe rat e indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion 

# FIL ED

SEP 09 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 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).disc ove ry

rulings, Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002), a n d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in pa

rtia l ly de ny ing Hibbler’ s m otion for theInspe c tor Ge ne ra l’ s re port be c a use Hibble r did not de m o nstra te

“ a c tua l a nd substa ntia l pre judic e ,” whe re the re c ord showe d tha t this report did not e xist. Id. at 751 (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ) (e xpla ining a distric t c o urt’ s broa d disc re t ion to pe rm it or de ny disc ove ry ). M ore ove r, the distric t c o urt orde re d produc tion of, a nd R e xwinkleproduc e d, a c opy of a n inc i de nt re port, whic h did e x i st. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Hibbler’ s m otion for a fina l disc ove ry

e x te nsion be c a

use Hibble r fa i le d to de m onstra t e good c a

use . Se eJ ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc . , 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th C ir. 1992) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand “ g ood c a use ” re quire m e nt to m odify a sc he duling orde r). Additionally , Hibble r fa ile d to show wha t m at e ria l fa c ts would have be e n disc ove re d tha

t would ha ve pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt . Se eK

linge le v . Eik e nbe rry , 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ T h e burde n is on the nonm o ving pa

rty . . . to show wha

t m ate ria l fa c ts would bedisc ove re d tha t would pre c lude sum

m ary judgm e nt.” ). W e re je c t Hibble r’ s c onte ntions re ga rding the distric t c ourt’ s a lle ge d bia s 1 3 - 1 6 5 5 2 2and pre

judic e . W e do not c onside r Hibble r’ s a rgum e nts re lating to his de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la im

be c a use Hibble r doe s not c ha lle nge the ba sis for thedistric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la im . Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). W e do not c onside r Hibble r’ s a rgum e nts a s to why

he did not properly e xha ust his re ta lia

tion c la i m s be c a

use the y we re ra ise d for the first tim e in his rep ly brie f. Se eid. M ore ove r, Hibble r c onc e d e s tha t he did not file

se c ond le ve l grie va nc e s. W e do not c onside r any

argum e nts a

nd a lle gations ra ise d

for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se eid. Appe lle e s’ m otion to strike , file d on July 30, 2015, is denie d. Hibble r’ s re que st, file d on August 10, 2015, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 5 5 2 3