John Lucas v. County of Kern;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LUCAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF KERN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16439
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00552-DAD-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
John Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment sua sponte
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Lucas fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
* 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
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16439
challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his action. See Indep. Towers of Wash.
v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e 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. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro
se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the
complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to
amend when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --