James Thompson v. C Morales

Ninth Circuit

James Thompson v. C Morales

392 F. App'x 588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2010

Docket08-16227

StatusUnpublished

This text of 392 F. App'x 588 (James Thompson v. C Morales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Thompson v. C Morales, 392 F. App'x 588 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-appellant James L. Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals pro se from a jury verdict in favor of the five California correctional officers (the “officers”). Thompson sued the officers under § 1983 and several state law provisions, alleging that the officers, among other things, used excessive force against him and engaged in retaliatory acts. On appeal, Thompson appears to challenge several of the district court’s procedural decisions. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

We review all of the issues in this appeal for an abuse of discretion. Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (discovery rulings); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9 th Cir.2004) (evidentiary decisions); Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1998) (litigation management); Wilborn v. Escal *589 deron, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (appointment of counsel).

II

The district court properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion for an extension of time to file for summary judgment. See Muckleshoot Tribe, 141 F.3d at 1358. His motion was filed approximately seven months after the deadline for dispositive motions had expired.

The district court again properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel. Thompson failed to demonstrate that he was likely to succeed on the merits and that the complexity of his case surpassed his ability to articulate his claims. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

The district court also properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion to compel the production of certain documents. Thompson fails to show on appeal that the denial of discovery of these particular documents resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2003).

Thompson entirely fails to show that the district court abused its discretion as to any of its decisions during the jury trial. See Thomas v. Computar Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980).

Thompson’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-appellant James L. Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals pro se from a jury verdict in favor of the five California correctional officers (the “officers”). Thompson sued the officers under § 1983 and several state law provisions, alleging that the officers, among other things, used excessive force against him and engaged in retaliatory acts. On appeal, Thompson appears to challenge several of the district court’s procedural decisions. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

We review all of the issues in this appeal for an abuse of discretion. Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (discovery rulings); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9 th Cir.2004) (evidentiary decisions); Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1998) (litigation management); Wilborn v. Escal *589 deron, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (appointment of counsel).

II

The district court properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion for an extension of time to file for summary judgment. See Muckleshoot Tribe, 141 F.3d at 1358. His motion was filed approximately seven months after the deadline for dispositive motions had expired.

The district court again properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel. Thompson failed to demonstrate that he was likely to succeed on the merits and that the complexity of his case surpassed his ability to articulate his claims. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

The district court also properly exercised its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion to compel the production of certain documents. Thompson fails to show on appeal that the denial of discovery of these particular documents resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2003).

Thompson entirely fails to show that the district court abused its discretion as to any of its decisions during the jury trial. See Thomas v. Computar Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980).

Thompson’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

342 F.3d 1080 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc.

357 F.3d 1000 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Carrie Tritchler v. The County of Lake, the Superior Court in and for the County of Lake, and Lee B. Poole

358 F.3d 1150 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe

141 F.3d 1355 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F. App'x 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-thompson-v-c-morales-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack