Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ti
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHISH DAVID, N0. 04-16831
D.C. N0. CV—O3~0l567—NVW
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGMENT
TAMARA K. RICH, Officer; et al.,
Defendants — Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix). ·
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 08/ l 5/05
A TRUE CGPY _, ,
CATHY A..C;oAftttiz2 ‘
Qlerk 01°C0urt· , ‘
Arrest . _ £/ l
" SEP’*]*.2 E;
\\ ( » 0 I. J r V-
Depuh,»·C1er1<
Case 2:03—cv—01567—NVW Document 42 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 1 of 4

A FILED
Nor ron PUBLICATION AUG 15 2005
CATHY A. CATTERSON CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U-5- COURT 0** APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHISH DAVID, N0. 04- 1 6831
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-O3-0l567-NVW
V.
MEMorUrvr*
TAMARA K. RICH, Officer; et al.,
Defendants — Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 1, 2005**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Ashish David appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants knowingly violated the double
jeopardy clause in order to convict him of a crime. We have jurisdiction pursuant
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW Document 42 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 2 of 4

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a summary judgment and, we review for
abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, and the denial of a request to
modify a scheduling order. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, [nc.,
194 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (summary judgment); Zivkovic v. S. Calybrnia
Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend and scheduling
order modifications). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying David’s motion for
leave to amend his complaint, as David filed the motion after the defendants
moved for summary judgment. See Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d
796, 798 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming denial of motion to amend raised "after
discovery was virtually complete and the [defendant’s] motion for summary
judgment was pending before the court").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying David’s motion for
an extension of time because David did not establish that the existing deadlines
could not reasonably be met. See Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Officer Rich after
determining that she was entitled to qualified immunity because no evidence
2
Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW Document 42 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 3 of 4

established that Officer Rich’s conduct violated a constitutional right. See Saucier
v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
Z P" Y
gzliiriliiaigxinenson
Clerk 0f_Cc>urt, · ‘:'
ésifset _ e t
2 at I
- -_ “`¢<- - G, rr!. •
by: L _ s
3 D@¤JW@€"'k
Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW Document 42 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW

Document 42

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW

Document 42

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW

Document 42

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01567-NVW

Document 42

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 4 of 4