Court Opinion

ID: 9785043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:30.490933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:04.079416
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERI SAHM,                                      No. 22-35838

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00501-LK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TERI KEALOHA SAHM; TERI K. SAHM;
TERI SAHM,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                     Lauren King, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Teri Sahm appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging various violations of federal law and international conventions. We

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

      Because Sahm failed to make any argument in her opening brief regarding

      *
             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).
the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

and for failure to state a claim, Sahm has waived any challenge to the dismissal.

See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining that “we cannot manufacture arguments for appellant and . . . will not

consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d

139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s

opening brief are waived).

      Sahm’s motion requesting that this matter be heard initially en banc (Docket

Entry No. 4) is denied on behalf of the court.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-35838