Peter Goolsby v. Darren Raney

Good Law
483 F. App'x 326
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 21, 201211-35285California804 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Peter Leroy Goolsby (“Goolsby”) appeals the district court’s grants of sum mary judgment to defendants on his state and federal claims stemming from his traffic stop, arrest, detention, and prosecution in Park County, Montana. He also appeals the district court’s partial denial of his motion for an extension of time to conduct additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Because he has not met his evidentiary burdens, we affirm the district court.

I. Rule 56(f) Motion

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part Goolsby’s Rule 56(f) motion for an extension of time to conduct additional discovery. Goolsby has not shown that “the facts sought exist [or that] the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir.2008).

II. Grant of Qualified Immunity on Federal Claims

The district court properly granted qualified immunity to Livingston Police Department officials Darren Raney (“Ra-ney”), Glenn Farrell (“Farrell”), and Joseph Harris (“Harris”) because Goolsby has not shown that any conduct attributable to them “violate[d]…

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.