Alonzo Talley v. Cantu

Ninth Circuit

Alonzo Talley v. Cantu

637 F. App'x 462

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2016

Docket15-17238

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 462 (Alonzo Talley v. Cantu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alonzo Talley v. Cantu, 637 F. App'x 462 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alonzo Trevon Talley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and a state law negligence claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Talley has failed to address in his opening brief the district court’s dismissal of the claims alleged in his operative complaint, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s dismissal order. 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.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim, and we construe the dismissal of this claim to be without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.1994).

Talley’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on November 27, 2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alonzo Trevon Talley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and a state law negligence claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Talley has failed to address in his opening brief the district court’s dismissal of the claims alleged in his operative complaint, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s dismissal order. 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.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim, and we construe the dismissal of this claim to be without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.1994).

Talley’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on November 27, 2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 F. App'x 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alonzo-talley-v-cantu-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack