Background
Edward Plummer, Jr., appealing pro se, challenged a district court’s summary judgment in his action under Section nineteen eighty-three and Section nineteen eighty-five of Title forty-two of the United States Code. The underlying case alleged constitutional violations stemming from a conservatorship involving the County of Los Angeles and various individual defendants.
The court’s reasoning
The panel affirmed the judgment because the appellant failed to address the district court’s grounds for summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim or for dismissal of his other claims. The court cited precedent stating it will not consider claims not actually argued in the appellant’s opening brief. Additionally, the panel rejected contentions that the district court improperly denied discovery, noting that matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief are not considered.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that appellants must specifically address the district court’s reasoning for summary judgment in their opening briefs to preserve claims for appellate review. It also signals that arguments regarding discovery denials must be explicitly raised to be considered by the Ninth Circuit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download