CALVIN ROUSE, AKA Abdur Rashid Khalif v. Ron Van Boening;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CALVIN ROUSE, AKA Abdur Rashid
Khalif,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RON VAN BOENING; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35200
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05655-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Calvin Rouse, a.k.a. Abdur Rashid Khalif,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
APR 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-35200 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d
1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiff
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of his claims. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);
see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996) (access to court); Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (due process); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,
884, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (free exercise and RLUIPA); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d
802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (retaliation).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion
to quash defendant Van Boening’s deposition. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A district court is vested with broad
discretion to permit or deny discovery. . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue
defendants’ summary judgment motion until plaintiff could conduct additional
discovery because plaintiff failed to identify the specific facts that additional
discovery would have revealed or how those facts would have been essential to
defeat the summary judgment motion. See California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic

-- 2 of 3 --

11-35200 3
Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing
for an abuse of discretion and setting forth relevant factors).
Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --