714 Fed.Appx. 631 (9th Cir. 2017), 12-15456, Klein v. Williams
|Citation:||714 Fed.Appx. 631|
|Party Name:||Paul Scott KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr.; Cheryl Burson; Maryann Marsh; Brill; Magnum; Hain; Reid Kimoto, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Paul Scott Klein, Pro Se Denise McKay, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Brian Williams Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Defendants-Appellees Cheryl...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 02, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted September 28, 2017 [*] San Francisco, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00191-LRH-VPC, Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Paul Scott Klein, Pro Se
Denise McKay, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Brian Williams
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Defendants-Appellees Cheryl Burson, Maryann Marsh, Brill, Magnum, Hain
Floyd Travis Buchanan, S. Scott Greenberg, Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Reid Kimoto
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Paul Scott Klein filed a complaint pro se on May 30, 2008, alleging that Defendants— Reid Kimoto, principal of the Southern Desert Correctional Adult High School, and several officials and employees at the Southern Desert Correctional Center
("SDCC")— violated his constitutional rights and that he is thereby entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He now appeals pro se from the district courts grant of a motion to dismiss on the claims against Kimoto and from summary judgment on all but one claim against all other defendants, the verdict in a bench trial on the surviving claim, and the denial of several of his motions. We reverse the district courts decisions as to Kleins retaliation, conspiracy, and supplemental state law claims, but affirm as to the remaining claims.
Kleins claims, divided into 16 counts, stem from three events: Defendants response to Klein filing a sexual harassment grievance, and two sets of disciplinary proceedings, one that was initiated shortly after Klein complained about the prisons allegedly defective fire alarm system, and another initiated shortly after he brought a civil rights complaint. On appeal, Klein also brings several procedural claims, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel and dismissing without leave to amend, and that Defendants violated his right of access to the courts.
I. Procedural claims
Klein argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a scheduling order and his discovery request with respect to defendant Kimoto, but failed to explain what he sought to discover or to provide a reason beyond the general claim that Kimoto had some unspecified information that he did not. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm the district courts denial of Kleins motions and requests for discovery. See Laub v. United States Dept of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[A] decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant. ").
Klein also argues that the district court erred in granting defendant Kimotos motion to dismiss without advising Klein that he could amend his complaint. A dismissal without leave to amend is reviewed de novo . Smith v. Pacific Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004). Klein failed to show that he would cure deficiencies in his complaint, or provide any examples of the amendments that he would make if given the chance. See Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). We thus affirm the district courts denial of leave to amend on the basis that amendment would be futile. See
Klein also argues that complexities in his case, including not having physical access to a law library, lack of legal reference material, the inability to retain legal materials because they were taken by prison officials, and legal inexperience require him to have appointed counsel. We review a denial of a motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for abuse of discretion. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The district court has discretion to designate counsel only in "exceptional circumstances." See
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an "evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the inability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. " Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Klein has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and he has failed to show that any difficulty litigating his case "derived from the complexity of the legal issues involved." See id. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion
in the district courts denial of Kleins motion for appointment of counsel.
We also find unpersuasive Kleins claim that Defendants violated his right of access...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP