Kent Glen Williams v. BROOKS, Guard;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENT GLEN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BROOKS, Guard; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35587
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00223-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Kent Glen Williams appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment claims
arising from his pretrial detention at Ada County Jail. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
* 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 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35587
291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order); Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998)
(dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’s
action as a discovery sanction because Williams was warned that if he chose not to
undergo the prison’s required medical screening, thereby impeding his in-person
deposition, the action would be dismissed, and Williams nevertheless refused to
undergo the required medical screening without providing any explanation for his
refusal. See Valley Eng’rs Inc., 158 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussing factors to be
considered before dismissing under Rule 37(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s motion
to amend the complaint because Williams failed to establish “good cause.” See
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a plaintiff seeking amendment
after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause).
We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that the district court erred
by failing to accept his proposed amended complaint as a new complaint.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --