NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., No. 19-35512
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00400-MK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HUGH J. HURWITZ, BOP Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to pay the filing fee. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Fourstar fails to raise, and has therefore waived, any
challenge to the district court’s determinations that he: 1) had three prior qualifying
‘strikes’ under § 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act; and 2) failed to
allege he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the
complaint was lodged. 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.”); 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); 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[.]”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-35512