Martel

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge NORRIS.

OPINION

'The district judge in this case is an exceptionally able, hard-working, and conscientious jurist. However, he enforces a procedure widely known as the “rocket docket.” His standard practice is to set cases for trial within three months of the filing of the answer. He adhered to that policy in this § 1983 police brutality action. As a result,' the plaintiff, Angel Martel, was forced to go to trial before he had any opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery. Martel appeals from the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants. Because we conclude that the. district judge’s refusal to grant any continu- *942 anee constituted an abuse of his discretion, and because his enforcement of his “rocket docket” policy violated the Local Rules of the Central District of California, we reverse.

I.

Angel Martel was diagnosed as paranoid' schizophrenic following a brain injury suffered in 1978. On June 6, 1990, while at his home in Pico Rivera, California, he experienced delusions that someone was attempting to break into his car. He took a shotgun and went into his backyard. Martel’s brother-in-law, Henry Ortega, followed him into…

dissenting:

It is the law of our circuit that when a district court denies discovery, the party complaining of error must show actual and substantial prejudice to obtain a reversal on appeal. See Sablan v. Dep’t of Finance of N. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317 , 1321 (9th Cir.1988) (a court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.”) (inner quotation marks omitted); Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535 , 540 (9th Cir.1986); Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 , 1285 n. 1 (9th Cir.1977). 1 The majority disregards circuit law and holds that a .denial of “meaningful discovery” is a structural error that is per se harmful.

*949 The majority goes astray in its analysis by focussing on the impact of a denial of-discovery on the discovery process itself rather than its impact on the outcome of trial. The following statement makes this clear: '“Although we do not know what kind of case Martel actually put on at trial, we do know that his preparation for that trial was manifestly…