Dawes v. Ausbury
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Michael M. Anello (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2019-12-20); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2020-04-10); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2021-04-19); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2021-06-30); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2021-07-20); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2022-02-03); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2022-08-03); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2023-02-06); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2023-02-28); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2023-08-14); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-02-13); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-02-21); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-03-13); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-08-14); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-09-24); Dawes v. The People of the State of California (2024-12-13) — the district court's orders on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM DAWES, No. 25-1701 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02122-MMA- Plaintiff - Appellant, VET v. MEMORANDUM* HOWARD AUSBURY, Lt. at RJD; MARIO ZUNIGA, Correctional Officer; SHELLANO, Correctional Officer; JUAN AYALA, Correctional Officer in I.S.U.; SILVA, Correctional Officer; SOLIS, I.S.U. Correctional Officer; UGALDE, Correctional Officer; BRAVO, Lt. in the I.S.U. at RJD, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.
* 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). California state prisoner William Dawes appeals pro se from the district court’s order administratively closing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1308-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Because Dawes does not challenge the district court’s grounds for administrative closure of his action in his opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.
2003) (explaining that “we 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. 1992), as amended (Oct. 8, 1993) (explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-1701