VICTOR FOURSTAR, JR. V. STEVE BULLOCK, No. 19-35030 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 5 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-35030 D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00036-SPW MEMORANDUM* STEVE BULLOCK; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, 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 dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim and imposing a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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 address the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s judgment. 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[.]”). To the extent Fourstar contends he was not a prisoner and not subject to the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record. AFFIRMED. 2 19-35030

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.