Opinion
21-15782
08-24-2022
JOSE LUIS TAPIA-FIERRO, AKA Jose Tapia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEON N. WILMOT, Yuma County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 17, 2022[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03096-JAT
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Jose Luis Tapia-Fierro appeals pro se from the district court's judgment entered after a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was wrongfully detained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Tapia-Fierro's challenge to the district court's probable cause determination is unreviewable because Tapia-Fierro has failed to provide this court with a trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) ; Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (when an appellant fails to provide a transcript of the district court proceeding this court may dismiss the appeal or refuse to consider the appellant's argument).
The district court did not err in holding a bench trial because Tapia-Fierro did not make a demand for a jury trial in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, and the record provided does not indicate that Tapia-Fierro moved to reconsider the district court's order setting the matter for a bench trial or objected at trial. See Cal. Scents v. Surco Products, Inc., 406 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); White v. McGinnis, 903 F.2d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (knowing participation in a bench trial without objection is sufficient to constitute a jury waiver).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Tapia-Fierro's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).