Theron Holston v. G Rosa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 22-17028
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THERON KENNETH HOLSTON, No. 22-17028

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01076-KJM-CKD

v. MEMORANDUM* G VIERA ROSA; JEFFREY GREEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Theron Kenneth Holston appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging special conditions of parole.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions

for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rosa

on Holston’s claims challenging his 2019 parole conditions because Holston failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his challenge to certain

conditions was not moot or whether the operative parole conditions were

unreasonable. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1012 (9th Cir.

2012) (explaining substantive due process analysis); Bernhardt v. County of Los

Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant

at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holston’s request

for additional leave to amend because Holston did not demonstrate good cause for

seeking amendment after the deadline. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that a party must show “good cause” to amend a pleading after a date

specified in a scheduling order).

Rosa’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as

unnecessary. Holston’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the

opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-17028