Paul

Paul v. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center

Good Law
68 F. App'x 76
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 2003No. 02-35895; D.C. No. CV-96-00429-BLWCalifornia574 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Francis Paul appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on Paul’s federal claim and to counterclaimant Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (“EIRMC”) on its counterclaims. Paul also appeals various nondispositive orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court granted defendants’ motions to strike Paul’s untimely responses to their motions for summary judgment. We review the district court’s ruling on a motion to strike for an abuse of discretion. See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir.2003). Because the district court “considered and rejected” Paul’s arguments as to why the court should excuse his failure to meet the filing deadline set by the local rules or the extended deadline set in the court-issued Notice of Past Due Response, striking Paul’s responses was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 1041 .

Because the district court determined that defendants’ motions for summary judgment were supported by their moving papers, the district court did not err by granting the motions. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that…

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.