DENNIS ALLUMS V. USDOJ, No. 20-16928 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-16928 D.C. No. 4:19-cv-04906-YGR v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants-Appellees, and UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT; CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Dennis Bruce Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. In his opening brief, Allums fails to address any of the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. 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 . . . .”). Allums’s motion to dismiss under protest (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 20-16928

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.