PACKNETT v. ALVAREZ (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kenneth Jerome Packnett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of an extension of time to file an opposition. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Packnett’s seventh motion to extend the time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Packnett was warned that he would not be given any further extensions, had over ten months to file an opposition, and had extensive access to the prison law library during that period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time․”); Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258-60 (discussing good cause requirement for extensions of time).

In his opening brief, Packnett fails to address the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants. Therefore, Packnett has waived any challenge to the summary judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (arguments not raised by party in opening brief are deemed waived).

AFFIRMED.