Michael E. Clark v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL E. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15128
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02178-JAD-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael E. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a municipal policy or custom of conducting
false arrests. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Clark fails to address the district court’s 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15128
judgment, and he has therefore waived his challenge to those portions of the
district court’s order. 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 Clark’s motion to
extend the deadline set forth in the scheduling order to amend his complaint
because Clark did not show good cause for the extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-10 (9th Cir.
1992) (setting forth standard of review and holding that modification of a pretrial
scheduling order after the applicable deadline has passed requires a showing of
good cause, which “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
amendment”).
We reject as without merit Clark’s contention that the district judge was
biased against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --