Loureece Stone Clark v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOUREECE STONE CLARK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 20-15238
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02014-KJM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Loureece Stone Clark appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus under 18
* 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15238
U.S.C. § 3771 alleging that defendants ignored his petition regarding recalculation
of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Clark does not address how the district court erred by
dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Clark has therefore waived his
challenge to the district court's order. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.
1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion
does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --