GRIGSBY v. VON BLANCKENSEE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-24No. No. 20-15655

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing Grigsby's habeas corpus petition was affirmed.

Philip Grigsby, a federal prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging various prison conditions and practices. His petition raised claims about restricted email and court access, the opening of legal mail outside his presence, alleged harassment directed at him and transgender inmates generally, and entitlement to custody credit recalculation. The appeals court found that Grigsby failed to argue that the district court erred in determining his claims belonged in a civil rights lawsuit rather than a habeas proceeding, thereby waiving that argument on appeal. Additionally, the custody credit claim was not properly preserved because it was not raised in the lower court.

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

Key issues

Whether habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for challenging prison conditions and mail handling practices
Waiver of arguments not raised in an appellant's opening brief
Preservation of custody credit recalculation claims on appeal

Procedural posture

Grigsby appealed pro se from a district court dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Philip Andra Grigsby appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing Grigsbys 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 courts, that legal mail had been opened outside of Grigsbys presence, and that Grigsby had been subjected to harassment. Grigsby also claimed that prison staff harass transgender inmates.

Grigsbys 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 appellants 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).

Grigsbys 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). Grigsbys motions for appointment of counsel are denied.

AFFIRMED.