Opinion
21-15584
10-18-2022
JORGE A. RICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BRISTOW, Lieutenant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding No. 3:19-cv-05892-CRB
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Jorge A. Rico, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rico failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant failed to afford Rico all of the process he was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and explaining that prison authorities have discretion "to keep the hearing within reasonable limits," including limiting the compilation of evidence and refusing to call witnesses, "whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases").
The district court did not err by implicitly denying Rico's request to defer or deny summary judgment to allow additional discovery because Rico failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that the court treats a "district court's failure specifically to address the Rule 56(d) request as an implicit denial," which is reviewed de novo); Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2017) (to prevail on a Rule 56(d) request, a party must state in an affidavit the specific facts it seeks in further discovery, and show that such facts exist and are essential to oppose summary judgment).
We do not consider 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).