that Rule 56(f) requires movant to show “how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). . The district court awarded attorney’s fees and costs against Gamage for pursuing a frivolous action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Nevada Revised Statute 18.010(2)(b). The district court also sanctioned Bach under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 after finding that he “recklessly [and] in bad faith” multiplied the proceedings. See United States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir.1983). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gamage’s action as a whole was frivolous or that Bach multiplied the proceedings recklessly and in bad faith. See Harris v. Maricopa Cty. Superior Court, 631 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Blodgett, 709 F.2d at 610 (holding that
holding that attorneys fees awards are available under  1988 for frivolous actions holding that judicial immunity was not a bar to awards of attorneys fees and costs or to demands for injunctive relief holding that a case awarding fees under 42 usc  1988 has no application in a private claim for attorneys fees sounding in mississippi contract law holding that a law clerks time is recoverable as part of attorneys fees under  1988 holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc  1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim