NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANNY FABRICANT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

LOUIS WINN, Former Warden; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 18-17453 

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02008-JAS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17453 

summary judgment in his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging due 

process and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

affirm.

As a preliminary matter, Fabricant has waived any challenge to the 

substance of the district court’s summary judgment because he did not raise them 

in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 

929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and 

distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not 

supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The district court properly dismissed Counts I through V of Fabricant’s 

second amended complaint, because Fabricant failed to allege facts sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-82 

(1995) (a prisoner has no protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed 

neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant 

hardship”); Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 

2013) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and 

disregards a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate’s health or safety); 

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of a 

retaliation claim in the prison context); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th 
3 18-17453 

Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s fourth 

motion to extend time to oppose summary judgment because Fabricant failed to 

establish good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and required showing for 

good cause).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s request 

to file an oversized first amended complaint because Fabricant failed to comply 

with the local rules. See D. Ariz. Loc. R. 3.4; Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 

1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that this court 

gives “[b]road deference” to district court’s interpretation of its local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s motion

to propound additional requests for admission because Fabricant failed to establish 

prejudice. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 

2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court’s denial of 

discovery will not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of “actual and 

substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s request 

for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 
4 18-17453 

668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s various 

other requests. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(stating that “district courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and this 

court “will reverse a district court’s litigation management decisions only if it 

abused its discretion” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Fabricant’s requests to file a third amended complaint and for costs, set forth 

in the opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.