N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VINC ENT C . W HITE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EASTSIDE UNION SC HOOL DISTR IC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56787 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-04622-R GK-JC 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 R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding 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. Vinc e nt C . White a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt in his e m ploy m e nt a c tion a lle ging dispa rate tre at m e nt, dispa

ra te im p a c t, a nd re ta lia tion c la im s unde r TitleVII. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# FIL ED SEP 03 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wde novo. P e te rson v . He w le tt-Pac k ard C o. , 358 F.3d 599, 602 (9th C ir. 2004) . W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W

hite ’ s dispa

ra te tre atm e n t c la im

be c a u se White fa i le d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r his job pe rform anc e wa s sa tisfa c t ory , or whe t

he r sim i la rly situa te d individuals outside of his prote c te d c la ss we re tre ate d m ore favora b ly . Se e id. at 603 (re q uire m e nts for dispa

rate tre atm e n t c la im ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W

hite ’ s dispa

ra te im pa c t c la im

be c a use White fa i le d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe t

he r the substitute te a c h e r e va luation form

c a use d a dispa ra t e im pa c t. Se e Stout v . Potte r , 276 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ It is not suffic ie nt to pre se n t e vide nc e ra ising a n infe re nc e of disc rim ination on a dispa ra te im p a c t c la im . The pla intiff m ust a c tua l ly

prove the disc rim inatory im pa c t at issue .” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)); se e also id. at 1123 (“ [T] he probative va lue of any sta tistic a l c om

pa rison is lim

ite d by the sm a ll a

va ila ble sa m ple . ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W

hite ’ s re ta lia

tion c la im be c a use White fa ile d to ra ise a tria b le disputea s to whe the r the re wa s a c a usa l link be twe e n the prote c te d a c tivity and a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion. Se e

1 3 - 5 6 7 8 7 2Manatt v . Bank of Am., N A , 339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th C i r. 2003) (e le m e nts of a prim a fa c i e c a se of re ta lia

t ion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing W hite ’ s disc ove ry re que s ts a nd his Fe d . R . C iv. P. 56(d) m o tion be c a u se White fa ile d

to show tha

t the disc ove ry he re que ste d wa s e sse ntia l to oppose sum m a ry judgm e n t. S

e e Ge tz v . Boe ing C o. , 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th C i r. 2011) (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t a pla i ntiff m

ust show tha

t the disc ove ry sought would ha

ve pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt); Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (tria l c ourt ha s broa d disc re t ion to de ny a m o tion to c om pe l). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing W hite ’ s m otion for re c o nside ra tion be c a

use White fa ile d to de m onstra te any grounds for re lie f. Se e Sc h. Dist. N

o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty . , Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining c irc um sta

n c e s warran ting re c onside ra tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

warding de fe nda

nt c osts in the a m ount of $3,448.00. Se e Sav e Our Valle y v . Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 n.12 & at 945-46 (9th C i r. 2003) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining that the distric t c ourt re a sona bly e xe rc i se d disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the 1 3 - 5 6 7 8 7 3re a s ons a dva nc e d by the losing pa

rty we re not suffic ie ntly

pe rsua sive to ove rc om e the p re sum

ption of a fe e award). W e re je c t White ’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt judgewa s bia se d a nd im prope rly de nie d his re q

ue st to proc e e d in form a

pa u pe ris on a ppe a l . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 6 7 8 7 4