Raul Arellano v. Michael Santos
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Barry T. Moskowitz (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — DISMISSED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Arellano v. Santos (2020-03-16); Arellano v. Santos (2020-10-26); Arellano v. Santos (2020-12-21); Arellano v. Santos (2021-12-30) — 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL ARELLANO, No. 21-56348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.