Case Name: Desha M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. BUTLER and S. Rousseau, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 441 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 10-15261
Parties: Desha M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. BUTLER and S. Rousseau, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
Desha M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. BUTLER and S. Rousseau, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 5, 2011.
Desha M. Carter, Wasco, CA, pro se.
Tiffany R. Hixson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Cali fornia Attorney General, San Diego, CA, John E. Rittmayer, Esquire, Tiffany R. Hixson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Jack M. Schuler, Esquire, Schuler and Brown, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Desha M. Carter appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment and due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's ruling on a motion to continue, Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter's motions for a continuance because the likely utility of the continuance was low, the continuance would have seriously inconvenienced the court and defendants, and Carter has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the denial. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.