Harry Vern Fox v. Henry Richards;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARRY VERN FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HENRY RICHARDS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-35678
D.C. No. CV-06-05063-RBL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Harry Vern Fox, a civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 07-35678 2
violations arising from his confinement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
By failing to identify the issues he sought to appeal in his opening brief, Fox
has waived any arguments that the district court erred in disposing of his claims.
See Entm’t Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211,
1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and
distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”) (citations omitted);
Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that
arguments not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned).
We have already considered and denied Fox’s requests for appointment of
counsel.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --