TINA BRADFORD V. LACOE, No. 20-56148 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TINA MARIE BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56148 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03691-PSG-AS MEMORANDUM* LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Tina Marie Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging claims arising from an infection suffered while she was employed as a substitute teacher. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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 and denies Bradford’s request for oral argument, set forth in her opening and reply briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bradford’s action because Bradford failed to file a timely opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss not later than twenty-one days before the hearing date); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file any required document within the deadline may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion); see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradford’s motion to reopen for new trial because Bradford failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). /// /// 2 20-56148 Bradford’s motions “for defendant(s) to forward deposition and deposition video” are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-56148

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.