Perry C. Blair v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERRY C. BLAIR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;
CORCORAN STATE PRISON; SATF-
STATE PRISON AT CORCORAN; J
JOHNSON; O. A. YBARRA; CHAN,
Doctor; B O DANIELS; F. FRANOCO; J.
ALVA; SANTOS; A. SANCHEZ; A.
ESQUEDA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15845
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Perry C. Blair appeals pro se from the district
* 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).
FILED
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15845
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment. The record shows
that Blair did not file a timely opposition to the defendants’ October 14, 2019
motion for summary judgment or any substantive objections to the findings and
recommendations, despite being given numerous extensions by the district court.1
Blair thus failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his
constitutional rights were violated. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34
(1994) (setting forth requirements to prove a failure-to-protect claim under the
Eighth Amendment); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974) (setting
forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings); Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a
First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Blair’s sixth request
for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations
1 Blair attached numerous documents to his reply brief, including a document titled
“Opposition to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Request” and a declaration in
support of this filing. Because these two documents do not appear in the district
court docket and were attached for the first time in Blair’s reply brief, we do not
consider them. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15845
because Blair failed to demonstrate good cause. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,
Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review for
denial of extension of time and good cause requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --