CLARDY v. GULICK (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a ruling on a motion to strike. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Gemini Mgmt., 921 F.2d 241, 244 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Clardy’s motion to strike because the answer was timely served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (the district court may modify the time by which any act required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is due); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1) (discussing time limits for filing responsive pleadings); Tindall v. First Solar Inc., 892 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2018) (the district court may grant motions for an extension of time upon a finding of good cause).

We do not consider matters, including the basis for summary judgment, not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.