Ricky Lee Grundy v. Howard Skolnik;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICKY LEE GRUNDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16136
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00694-RLH-
LRL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ricky Lee Grundy, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials violated his First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We
FILED
APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-16136 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gibson v. County
of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Grundy
failed to present any evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
(setting forth the evidentiary support required in opposing a motion for summary
judgment); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming
summary judgment where pro se non-moving party presented no evidence creating
a genuine dispute of material fact).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grundy’s motions
to file a second amended complaint because the court had already provided notice
of the deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, and further amendment would
unfairly prejudice the defendants. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992,
1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting that the district
court’s discretion is particularly broad when it has already granted leave to amend).
Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Grundy’s appendix that were not
part of the district court record is granted.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-16136 3
Grundy’s Motion to Vacate the Appellate Commissioner’s February 22,
2013 order is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --