T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR K S T E P HE N WI C KL UN D, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. A D A C O U N T Y ; J O H N /J A N E D O E 1- 5, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35613 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 6 7 3 - C WD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho C a ndy W . D a l e , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y5, 2011 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , M cK E O W N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ark W i ckl un d fi l ed a 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng thatprosec ut ors f r om the A daC ounty D i s tr i c tA tt orne y ’ s of f i c e ( “ A daC ounty ” ) vi ol a t e d hi s due p r o c e s s r ig h ts b yr e m o v in g d o c u m e n ts f r o m h is c o u rt f

ile , th e r e b yr e q u ir in g h im to



# FI LED MA Y09 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35613 2 re subm i tthe do cum ent s t o the court . W i ckl un d app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i ons f

ore xpe di t e d di s c ove rya nd the c ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e nt on hi s due pr oc e s s c l a i m . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291 a nd w e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng W i c kl und’ s M ot i on f o rE x p e d ite d D is c o v e ry p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 2 6 ( d ) . W i ckl un d p rovi ded n o rea sonabl e e xp l anat i on as t o w hy expedi t ed di sc ov ery w as n e c e s s a ry to p e rm it h im to r e f u te A d aC o u n ty ’s m o tio n . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 26 (d); L aub v . U

. S. D e pt. of I nte r i or , 342 F . 3d 1080, 1093 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ [ A ] de c i s i on t o de ny di s c ove ry w i l l notbe di s turbe d e xc e ptupon the c l e a r e s ts how i ng tha tthe de ni a l of di s c ove ry r e s ul t s i n a c tua l a nd s ubs t a nt i a l pr e j udi c e t o the c om pl a i ni ng litig a n t.” ) . S i m i l ar l y, the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of W i ckl un d’ s M ot i on for R el i ef pu rs uantt o R ul e 56(f) w as no tan abuse of di sc re t i on . W i ckl un d d i d n otspec i fy the i nf orm a t i on he w a s s e e ki ng thr ough di s c ove ryorpr ovi de a nyba s i s f or b e lie v in g th a t a n y in f

o rm a tio n s o u g h t w a s in A d aC o u n ty ’s p o s s e s s io n . See E m p’ rs T e am s te rs L oc al

N os . 175 and 505 P e ns i on T r us t Fund v . C lor ox C o. , 353 F .3 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) .10- 35613 3 T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton W i c kl und’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m . W i c kl und pr ovi de s no s upportf orhi s c ont e nt i on tha tthe r e i s adue p ro ce ss v io lati o n w h er e a p ar ty h as to re su b m itto th e c o u rt ev id en ce in th e p ar ty’s p o s s e s s io n . Se e I

nde p. T ow e rs of W as h. v . W as h. , 35 0 F . 3d 92 5, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ Iti s [ the appel l ant ’ s] bu rden on appeal t o p re se ntthe courtw i th l egal a r gum e nt s t o s upporti t s c l a i m s . ” ) . T o the e xt e nttha tW i c kl und i s a r gui ng tha tA da C o u n tys u p p r e s s e d m a te r ia llye x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e , h is c la im is b a rr e d b e c au s e it i m pl i ca t es the val i di ty of hi s und er l yi ng conv i ct i on , w hi ch has notbeen in v a lid a te d . See H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; B r adyv . M ar y land , 3 7 3 U . S . 8 3 , 8 7 (1 9 6 3 ). E v en i f th e d o cu m en t s w ere o n l y p o t en t i al l y ex cu l p at o ry, W i ckl un d h as fa i l ed t o st at e adu e proces s c l ai m because the do cum ent s w er e re as on abl y avai l abl e t o h i m — they w er e i n h i s posse ss i on and h e r es ub m i tt ed them to th e c o u rt. See U

ni ted Stat es v. H

erna ndez , 109 F . 3d 1450, 1455 ( 9th C i r . 1977) ( s uppr e s s i on of

pot e nt i a l l y e xc ul pa t orye vi de nc e vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s onl yi f the d e f e n d a n t w a s “u n ab le to o b ta in c o m p a r ab le e v id e n c e b yo th e rr e a s o n ab ly a v a ilab le m e a n s ” ) . A F F I R M E D .