IKEMEFULA IBEABUCHI V. EGGLESTON, No. 19-16963 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16963 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04750-JAT-JZB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. EGGLESTON, Director of Operation, FOIA/PA, Missouri Branch; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of his * 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). immigration detention and his request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. In his opening brief, Ibeabuchi fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing his action for failure to state a claim. As a result, Ibeabuchi has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments 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 . . . .”). We reject as meritless Ibeabuchi’s contentions that the district court clerk’s description of his motion to reopen the time to appeal was erroneous and that the district court should have granted him leave to amend sua sponte. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-16963

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.