NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDY MATTHEW CORDERO, No. 17-16608
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01551-JAM-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NICK A. GUZMAN, C/O; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges
California state prisoner Randy Matthew Cordero appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment following a jury verdict against Cordero in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. 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).
In his opening brief, Cordero failed to challenge the district court’s summary
judgment for defendants Mejia, Smith, Vincent, Bugarin, and Parra, and he has
therefore waived any such challenge. 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 appellant’s opening brief.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28
F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant . . . .”).
To the extent that Cordero challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s verdict, Cordero waived such a challenge by failing to move
for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial before the district court. See Nitco
Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that
to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, a party must file both a pre-
verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and a post-verdict
motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial under Rule 50(b)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Cordero’s contentions that the
district court improperly failed to instruct the jury about the credibility of
impeached witnesses or closed the trial to the public.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
2 17-16608
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-16608