BELL v. CORECIVIC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-22No. No. 20-17081

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment and the denial of Bell's discovery and post-judgment motions because Bell failed to comply with applicable procedural rules and did not adequately raise his arguments on appeal.

Cameron Bell, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's summary judgment in his diversity lawsuit against CoreCivic. Bell filed several motions in the lower court, including a motion to compel discovery and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, both of which were denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit examined whether the district court abused its discretion in denying these motions and in granting summary judgment.

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion. Bell's motion to compel discovery failed because he did not follow the procedural rules required for such motions under federal and local court rules. Similarly, his motion to alter or amend the judgment lacked any legal basis for relief. Additionally, because Bell did not meaningfully address the summary judgment ruling in his opening brief, he forfeited the opportunity to challenge that decision on appeal. Pro se litigants, the court noted, must follow the same procedural requirements as represented parties.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to compel discovery
Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to alter or amend judgment
Whether pro se litigant must comply with procedural rules
Whether appellant waived challenge by failing to argue issue in opening brief

Procedural posture

Bell appealed pro se from the district court's summary judgment dismissing his diversity action against CoreCivic.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Cameron Bell appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district courts rulings on discovery motions. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bells motion to compel discovery because Bell failed to adhere to federal and local rules governing motions to compel discovery. See Sablan v. Dept of Fin., 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A district courts] decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural rules as other litigants).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bells motion to alter or amend the judgment because Bell failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

In his opening brief, Bell fails to address the district courts grant of summary judgment and has therefore waived his challenge to the district courts order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellants opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellants opening brief are waived).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.