Chancellor Wade v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
447 F. App'x 842
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 17, 201110-16271California477 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Chancellor Wade appeals pro se from two prejudgment orders in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants’ failure to give him a pork-free diet and offer Islamic religious services while he was a pretrial detainee at the Sacramento County Main Jail violated federal and state laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s rulings denying a continuance of summary judgment pending discovery and denying leave to amend. Tatum v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 , 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (continuance); Johnson v. Buckley, 856 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir.2004) (leave to amend). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wade leave to file a third amended complaint to add claims against both existing and voluntarily dismissed defendants based on previously known facts where his case had been pending for two years. See Johnson, 356 F.3d at 1077-78 (listing factors upon which leave to amend can be denied); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir.2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend where new facts allegedly learned…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.