NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTWOINE MARQUISE BEALER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

R. BRANNUM; S. RIOS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16582 

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 2, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Antwoine Marquise Bealer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from 

the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict against Bealer in his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to defendants’ alleged use of 

excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

 

* 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

APR 4 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16582 

The district court properly screened and dismissed Bealer’s claims against

the warden, the associate warden, nurse Torricer, and Sergeant Epperson because 

Bealer failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A; Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (court reviews de 

novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); see also Mendiola–Martinez v. Arpaio, 

836 F.3d 1239, 1248 (9th Cir. 2016) (requirements for deliberate indifference 

claim); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for 

cruel and unusual punishment claim); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 

2011) (requirements for supervisory liability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bealer’s motions 

for injunctive relief related to Bealer’s allegations that he had limited access to the 

law library and his legal materials because Bealer failed to establish that absent 

such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 

Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (setting forth standard for issuance of preliminary 

injunction).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery orders. See

Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts 

are vested with “broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”). Contrary to 

Bealer’s contention, the district court afforded him multiple and ample 

opportunities to participate in discovery, including depositions.
3 16-16582 

We reject, as unsupported by the record, Bealer’s allegations regarding juror 

bias. Bealer contends that certain jurors were biased against him based solely on 

the fact that the jurors had friends or relatives who were employed in law

enforcement at some time. However, this is insufficient to demonstrate bias. Cf. 

Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 529 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We will not presume bias

merely because a juror works in law enforcement[.]”); see also Fields v. Brown, 

503 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“The determination of whether a juror 

is actually biased is a question of fact, that we review for manifest error or abuse of 

discretion.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).

We reject Bealer’s contentions that he was prejudiced by the requirement to 

wear ankle restraints during trial because the district court took appropriate 

measures to conceal the restraints from the jury, and Bealer does not contend that 

the jury was aware of the restraints. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 592-

93 (9th Cir. 2004) (no prejudice resulting from shackles not visible to jury).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett 

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 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, particularly when, as 

here, a host of other issues are presented for review.”).
4 16-16582 

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.