Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. R. WILKERSON, AKA Adonai El-Shaddai, AKA James Wilkerson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. STAINER, Secretary, CDCR, Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-55287
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    J. R. Wilkerson, Pro Se
    Andrew M. Gibson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

J.R. Wilkerson, aka Adonai El-Shaddai, aka James Wilkerson (“El-Shaddai”) appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging constitutional and statutory violations related to the exercise of his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, El-Shaddai failed to challenge the district court’s screening order dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and therefore El-Shaddai has waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[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.,..”).

In light of our disposition, appellees motions to revoke El-Shaddai’s in forma pau-peris status (Docket Entry No. 5) and to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6) are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.