Steven A. Martin v. D. Hoffman;

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).
IL/RESEARCH
08-17254
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN A. MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. HOFFMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17254
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-00466-GEB-
JFM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Steven A. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment entered after a jury trial on his retaliation claim in his 42 U.S.C. §
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

IL/RESEARCH
08-17254
1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s order denying summary judgment, Prison Legal News v.
Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir. 2005), and for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s decisions related to managing its case, Pierce v. County of Orange,
526 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any ground supported by
the record. Pritikin v. Dep’t of Energy, 254 F.3d 791, 796 (9th Cir. 2001). We
affirm.
Because Martin failed to provide a transcript of the trial, we are unable to
review Martin’s contentions challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings,
that he was kept fastened to a leg restraint during trial, and that the district court
declined to help him formulate objections during trial. See Fed. R. App. P.
10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991).
The district court properly denied Martin’s motion for summary judgment
on his Fourteenth Amendment claim because he enjoyed no due process right to
employment in prison. See Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004)
(recognizing prisoner enjoys no per se Fourteenth Amendment right to prison
employment).

-- 2 of 3 --

IL/RESEARCH
08-17254
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martin’s motion to
continue the trial date or by assigning a new judge to preside over the trial. See
Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of
motion to continue); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991) (“District
court judges have broad discretion regarding the assignment or reassignment of
cases.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --