Billy Driver v. MACHUCA, Sergeant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY DRIVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MACHUCA, Sergeant,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16084
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05793-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Billy Driver appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino
FILED
FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Driver’s requests for oral
argument, set forth in his briefs, are denied.

-- 1 of 3 --

v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (legal rulings on exhaustion
of administrative remedies). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Driver’s First Amendment retaliation
claim for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies because Driver did not
raise in his grievance the claim that he now raises against Machuca in this action.
See Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] grievance suffices if it
alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because Driver makes no argument concerning the district court’s dismissal
of his other claims on allegedly “erroneous procedural grounds,” we deem the
issues abandoned. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed
abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“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, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented for
review.” (citation omitted)).
We reject Driver’s contentions regarding appointment of counsel and alleged
misconduct by the district judge.
13-16084 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Driver’s requests for appointment of counsel on appeal and a settlement
conference, set forth in his briefs, are denied.
Driver’s motion to stop filing fee overcharges, filed on October 28, 2013, is
denied without prejudice so that Driver may first raise this issue in the district
court where the alleged wrongful deductions occurred.
AFFIRMED.
13-16084 3

-- 3 of 3 --