Kenneth Hill v. H. Cottrell, C/o; Murphy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H. COTTRELL, C/O; MURPHY,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-15038
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03020-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kenneth Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s
* 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 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15038
judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Hill fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal for
failure to prosecute, and he has therefore waived any such challenge. 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.”);
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
Because Hill’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not
consider his challenge to the district court’s interlocutory order. See Al-Torki v.
Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally
appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to
prosecute . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --