Puerta
Puerta v. United States
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Former federal prisoner Antonio Medina Puerta appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion for a continuance, grant of summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of his Bivens claims, and the denial of his application to withdraw the stipulation of dismissal of the United States in his Federal Tort Claims Act claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Puerta’s Rule 56(f) motion for a continuance. The motion was untimely, see Ashton-Tate Corporation v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 520 (9th Cir.1990), and sought previously denied irrelevant discovery, see Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (9th Cir.1991); Maljack Production, Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corporation, 81 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court’s granting of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1018 . The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Puerta’s Bivens access to the courts claim because Puerta did not demonstrate actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-55 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d…