BELL v. CORECIVIC (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Cameron Bell appeals pro se from the district court's 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 court's 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 Bell's motion to compel discovery because Bell failed to adhere to federal and local rules governing motions to compel discovery. See Sablan v. Dep't of Fin., 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A district court's] 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 Bell's 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 court's grant of summary judgment and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court's 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 appellant's opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's 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.