NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MORRIS GREEN, Jr., No. 21-16465

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00607-TSH

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO; S.F. PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, all its agents involved in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Thomas S. Hixson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 2, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Green appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the

defendants. He also challenges several orders that the district court issued and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). argues that the court was biased. Because the facts are known to the parties, we

repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

I

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of

material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). The district court thoroughly analyzed each of Green’s claims and

provided numerous reasons for granting summary judgment to the City on each

claim. Green did not demonstrate that there were genuine issues of material fact

by citing particular evidence in the record, see Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279

(9th Cir. 1996), and he has not addressed many of the district court’s legal

conclusions supporting its judgment.

II

District courts have discretion to make evidentiary rulings, and these rulings

will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if they likely affected the verdict.

United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2015). Green’s

declaration consisted solely of pages from his prior filing and would have thwarted

the court’s order and local rules. Green failed to address the court’s numerous

grounds for excluding the declarations in his support. Neither Green’s declaration

nor those in his support provided material evidence that would change the district

court’s judgment. The court did not abuse its discretion in striking them.

2

III

A court may grant leave to amend pleadings after the deadline in a

scheduling order only for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Green specifically

referred to Eickman, Henderson, and Moala in his original complaint; he alleged

the causes of his proposed additional disabilities in his original complaint; and he

failed to properly serve Harrison and Lipps, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). The district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying Green leave to amend his complaint

to add these allegations or defendants.

District courts have “broad discretion” to manage pretrial litigation.

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The district

court did not abuse its discretion by vacating its order for a case management

conference or cancelling oral argument for the summary judgment motion, as its

local rules empowered it to do. N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-1(b), 16-10(a). Nor did the

court abuse its discretion by striking Green’s overlength and untimely filings.

District courts have broad discretion to oversee discovery. Laub v. U.S.

Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court did

not abuse its discretion by declining to reopen discovery because Green already

had ample opportunity to conduct discovery.

3 IV

“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

partiality motion. . . . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for

recusal.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The district court’s

rulings here would not cause a reasonable person to question the court’s

impartiality, United States v. Carey, 929 F.3d 1092, 1104 (9th Cir. 2019), nor do the

rulings demonstrate an antagonism “that would make fair judgment impossible,”

Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. The district court’s appropriate citation of relevant Ninth

Circuit caselaw does not suggest bias, nor do its other statements evaluating the

evidence or ruling on filings throughout litigation. Cf. United States v. Grinnell

Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966).

AFFIRMED.

4