Opinion
No. 18-56530
09-27-2019
MICHAEL MOSHE PERRY, AKA Moshe Michael A. Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICK DALEE, COO, Dupure Int'l, Eco Water; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08091-FMO-MRW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michael Moshe Perry's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 3) is granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 4.
Perry appeals pro se from the district court's order denying him in forma pauperis status and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
In his opening brief, Perry fails to argue how the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Perry has thus waived his challenge to the district court's dismissal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant's opening brief."); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's opening brief are waived); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry's motion to reassign his case to another judge because Perry did not demonstrate his case was not randomly assigned. See Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry's motion for reconsideration because Perry failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
In light of this disposition, we do not consider the merits of Perry's arguments regarding his claims or his remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.