LUCAS v. COUNTY OF KERN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-28No. No. 20-16439

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action, finding both that the appellant waived his challenges by failing to argue them in his opening brief and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

John Lucas, representing himself, appealed a district court's decision to dismiss his lawsuit containing federal and state law claims. The appellate court found that Lucas did not present any arguments in his opening brief challenging the dismissal, thereby forfeiting his right to appeal on those grounds. Additionally, the court determined that the district court properly refused to allow Lucas to file an amended complaint, as any such revision would have been futile and unable to cure the defects in his original claims.

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

Key issues

Whether appellant waived claims by failing to argue them in opening brief
Whether district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint
Futility of amendment as justification for dismissal without leave to amend

Procedural posture

A pro se appellant appealed from a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his federal and state law claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

John Lucas appeals pro se from the district courts 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 challenge to the district courts 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 appellants opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellants 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.