Mvuemba

MEMORANDUM

The denial of Landu Mvuemba’s (“Mvuemba’s”) request for a continuance to complete additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) was not an abuse of discretion. Such an abuse of discretion occurs only if the party requesting a continuance diligently pursued his previous discovery opportunities and can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of *909 California, Inc., 22 F.3d 839 , 844 (9th Cir. 1994). Mvuemba had approximately two years to complete discovery and failed to explain why he did not interview the shooting victims or obtain Officer Dean Vinluan’s (“Vinluan’s”) personnel file from the City of Los Angeles (“City”) during this extended period. Moreover, he failed to identify the specific, factual information he hoped to obtain from the interviews and personnel file and how that information would have precluded summary judgment.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Vinluan because Mvuemba failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the prosecutor exercised independent judgment in filing the felony complaint against Mvuemba. The…