J. WILKERSON V. M. STAINER, No. 17-55287 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT J. R. WILKERSON, AKA Adonai ElShaddai, AKA James Wilkerson, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-55287 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-09313-RGK-JC Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. M. D. STAINER, Secretary, CDCR, Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. J.R. Wilkerson, aka Adonai El-Shaddai, aka James Wilkerson (“ElShaddai”) appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized * 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). Persons Act, alleging constitutional and statutory violations related to the exercise of his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. In his opening brief, El-Shaddai failed to challenge the district court’s screening order dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and therefore El-Shaddai has waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); 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 . . . .”). In light of our disposition, appellees’ motions to revoke El-Shaddai’s in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 5) and to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6) are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 17-55287

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.