Ben Buffalo v. State of Arizona, named as State of Arizona, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEN BUFFALO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, named as State of
Arizona, Attorney General; BOBBIE
WOOLLEY, State Trooper,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, named as Department of Public
Safety, Risk Management Division,
Defendant.
No. 19-17401
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00248-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-17401
Ben Buffalo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his diversity action alleging wrongful death claims. 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 on Buffalo’s
negligence claims stemming from defendant Woolley’s conduct because Buffalo
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants breached
an existing duty or were the proximate cause of Bryce Buffalo’s auto accident. See
Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007) (en banc) (setting forth elements
of a negligence claim under Arizona law); see also In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig.,
627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing non-moving party’s burden to show
specific facts demonstrating existence of genuine disputes for trial).
The district court did not err by deferring consideration of the summary
judgment motion without formally ruling on Buffalo’s request for additional time
to take discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (setting forth the district court’s
options upon a proper showing by the nonmovant that it cannot present facts
essential to justify its opposition to summary judgment); Qualls ex rel. Qualls v.
Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of
review for district court’s failure to address a Rule 56(d) motion before granting
summary judgment; decision on a Rule 56(d) motion need not be explicitly stated).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-17401
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --