Raul Arellano v. MICHAEL BALBIN SANTOS, Primary Care Provider

21-56348Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit30 oct. 2023

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL ARELLANO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL BALBIN SANTOS, Primary
Care Provider; CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES; DANIEL PARAMO, Warden;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-56348
D.C. No.
3:18-cv-02391-BTM-WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 30, 2023**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Raul Arellano appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary
* 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).
FILED
OCT 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
judgment in favor of the defendants and the court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only
as necessary to explain our decision.
A party’s opening brief must include its arguments, including contentions
and reasoning. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). This court does not consider matters
that are not “specifically and distinctly argued” in an appellant’s opening brief.
Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986)).
We cannot identify a specific and distinct argument against the district court’s
judgment in Arellano’s opening brief, and we are compelled to strike it and dismiss
the appeal. See Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1(a); Cf. Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198,
1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Mindful of the harshness of this rule, we have
reviewed the district court record, and we are satisfied that the district court did not
err. Cf. Sekiya, 508 F.3d at 1200.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.