WEBSTER v. DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 20-35800

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Webster's appeal because Webster waived his challenge to the dismissal by failing to address the jurisdictional error in his opening brief.

Brent Webster appealed pro se from a district court decision that dismissed his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had previously dismissed Webster's adversary proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support. On appeal to the circuit court, Webster failed to substantively address in his opening brief how the district court erred when it dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Webster did not raise arguments challenging the dismissal in his opening brief, those arguments were forfeited under appellate procedure rules.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Webster adequately challenged the district court's jurisdictional dismissal
Application of the rule that arguments not raised in an opening brief are waived on appeal
Appellate procedure requirements for pro se litigants

Procedural posture

Webster appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his appeal of a bankruptcy court order that had dismissed his adversary proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy courts order dismissing his adversary proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district courts order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed 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 matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.