Philip Andra Grigsby v. Barbara Von Blanckensee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-15655
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00116-JAS-LCK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Philip Andra Grigsby appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing Grigsby’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In the petition, Grigsby claimed the denial of email access and access to the
* 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
MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15655
courts, that legal mail had been opened outside of Grigsby’s presence, and that
Grigsby had been subjected to harassment. Grigsby also claimed that prison staff
harass transgender inmates.
Grigsby’s opening brief fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
argument that the district court erred in its conclusion that these claims must be
pursued in a civil rights action rather than in a habeas proceeding. See Indep.
Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that this
court “cannot manufacture arguments for an appellant” and therefore “will not
consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief”
(internal quotations omitted)).
To the extent Grigsby argues entitlement to a recalculation of custody
credits, we do not consider that claim because it was not raised before the district
court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Grigsby’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is unnecessary because in
forma pauperis status was granted in the district court proceedings. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(3). Grigsby’s motions for appointment of counsel are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --