NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE FORTE, No. 16-17236
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00147-DAD-
BAM
v.
MERCED COUNTY; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eugene Forte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 action alleging various federal and state law
claims stemming from his arrest and prosecution. 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).
Forte has failed to address in his opening brief the claims alleged in his
complaint or the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his challenge to
the district court’s order. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009) (court does not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in the 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Forte’s contentions that the district
court participated in fraud and was biased against him.
Forte’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17236