Raul Arellano v. Michael Santos

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2023
• Docket: 21-56348
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL ARELLANO, No. 21-56348

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02391-BTM-WVG v.

MICHAEL BALBIN SANTOS, Primary MEMORANDUM* Care Provider; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES; DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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.