Joshua D. Lambert v. WILLIAM DENNIS, Chief and ISLAND COUNTY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA D. LAMBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM DENNIS, Chief and ISLAND
COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35080
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01213-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 6, 2018**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Former Washington state pre-trial detainee Joshua D. Lambert appeals pro
se the district court’s summary judgment in Lambert’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by placing him in
FILED
SEP 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

administrative segregation, the Behavior Management Module, and on suicide
watch, confiscating his legal materials when he was no longer proceeding pro se in
his criminal trial, and denying him medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.
2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lambert
failed to provide evidence that he timely exhausted prison grievance procedures
concerning his claim. See id. at 1171-72 (Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates
that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by
relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.”); see also
Hernandez v. Spacelabs Medical Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003)
(nonmoving party “cannot defeat summary judgment with allegations in the
complaint, or with unsupported conjecture or conclusory statements”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lambert’s motion to
compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(standard of review; discovery rulings “will not be disturbed except upon the
clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice
to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking as untimely
Lambert’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. See
S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review;
describing district court’s “inherent power” to control its docket (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Lambert's motion to supplement the excerpts of
record (Dkt. No. 26) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --