RAPHAEL RUSSELL V. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND, No. 16-35706 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAPHAEL RUSSELL, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-35706 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01649-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and fraud. 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, Russell fails to challenge the district court’s order granting summary judgment and therefore he has waived any such challenge. 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 without merit Russell’s contention that he was not properly served with documents because Russell consented to electronic service. We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). Russell’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 18. All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 7, 20, 21, and 24) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-35706

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.