WOODROFFE v. State of Oregon; Ellen Rosenblum; Shannon M. Vincent; Victor Beerbower; Colette S. Peters; Michael F. Gower; Greg Jones; Erica Sage; Mark Nooth; Jeri Taylor; John Myrick; Linda Schutt; Enrignes, Lieutenant; Boston, Lieutenant; Edision, Lieutenant; Primmer, Sergeant; Ransier, Correctional Officer; Hillmick; R. Krueger; Michael Mahony; Martin; Norton, Doctor; James Deacon; Wilsen; Leonard Williamson; Haga, Sergeant; Hoskins; T. Ridley; Dwayne Green; McMillin, Lieutenant; Stewart, Lieutenant, Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-19No. No. 18-35996

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants because Woodroffe failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, waived others, and could not establish the required elements of his remaining First Amendment retaliation claims.

Robert Woodroffe, an incarcerated individual, challenged a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his civil rights lawsuit against Oregon state officials and correctional staff. The appellate court reviewed whether the lower court properly managed the litigation, handled discovery disputes, and evaluated the merits of Woodroffe's remaining claims.

The court found no error in the district court's decision to extend the summary judgment deadline, noting that counsel's inadvertent mistake qualified as excusable neglect. Regarding discovery, Woodroffe failed to specify what information he was denied or demonstrate actual harm. The court determined that several claims were properly dismissed because Woodroffe did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required by federal law, and he waived other claims by declining to amend them when given the opportunity.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion by extending the summary judgment deadline
Whether Woodroffe was improperly denied discovery
Whether prisoner claims for Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Whether summary judgment was appropriate for remaining First Amendment retaliation claims

Procedural posture

Woodroffe appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his prisoner civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Robert Woodroffe appeals the district courts order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his prisoner civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014), and affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by extending the summary judgment deadline after it had expired. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that excusable neglect “covers cases of negligence, carelessness and inadvertent mistake” by counsel).

Plaintiff argues that he was denied discovery. However, he has not identified what discovery he was denied or how he was prejudiced. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review for discovery rulings and holding that we affirm, unless the plaintiff makes “the clearest showing” of “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of discovery).

Plaintiff waived the claims dismissed from the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend when he declined to amend the claims. First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera, 860 F.3d 1263, 1274 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court properly dismissed the unexhausted Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring that prisoners exhaust their available administrative remedies); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that claims must be completely exhausted before a prisoner files his action).

Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the remaining First Amendment retaliation claims. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants lacked legitimate correctional reasons for their actions, he suffered adverse actions, and/or a link between specific protected activities and the actions. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

Plaintiff waived his remaining claims in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues listed, but not discussed in the body of the opening brief, have been waived).

AFFIRMED.