Stephen R. Townzen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. County of El Dorado; El Dorado County Sheriff's Department;children's Protective Services Office; City Ofplacerville; Carol Halk; Lisa Wilson; Marty Hackett;dave Lawrence, Defendants-appellees, 60 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 1995)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Stephen R. Townzen appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the County of El Dorado and City of Placerville, et al., in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Townzen alleged that defendants violated his civil rights during a search of his home for suspected child neglect that resulted in Townzen's temporary loss of custody of his two minor children, and a criminal prosecution for child neglect.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm for the reasons set forth by the district court in its memoranda and orders of April 14, 1992, and September 2, 1994.

Townzen contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants without first advising him of the requirements of Rule 56. Because, however, no special assistance is required for nonprisoner pro se parties, see Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986), the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants without advising Townzen of the requirements of Rule 56.

Townzen also contends that the district court improperly granted summary judgment for defendants while his motion to compel a City of Placerville claims adjuster to honor a subpoena duces tecum was still pending.¹  Townzen's motion to compel compliance, along with the City of Placerville's motion to quash, were vacated as moot following the court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants.

Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). If, however, the district court fails to address a pending discovery motion by a party opposing summary judgment prior to issuing a dispositive order, the omission is reviewed de novo. Id. n. 3.

Townzen contends that City of Placerville records would reveal inconsistent accounts of the entry and search of his home, and could provide possible proof of conspiracy. Because Townzen failed to allege that defendants' actions were induced by racial or class-based animus, his claim of conspiracy cannot lie. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987).

Accordingly, the district court did not err by failing to rule on the merits of Townzen's untimely discovery motion prior to granting summary judgment. See Taylor v. Sentry Life Ins. Co., 729 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that summary judgment is appropriate when discovery requests could not produce evidence that would raise genuine issues of material fact).

Townzen's motions for leave to file supplemental opening and reply briefs are granted. All other pending motions are denied.² 

AFFIRMED.