Plummer v. County of Los Angeles

── Plummer v. County of Los Angeles ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 6 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD PLUMMER, Jr., an individual, No. 24-6352 and as Successor In Interest of Eula Dugas D.C. No. 2:20-cv-04568-SB-AGR Haughton, deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; JONATHAN SHERIN, in individual/official capacity; FERNANDO PIAZOLA, in individual/official capacity; WILLIAM SIAS, in individual/official capacity; CONNIE DRAXLER, in individual/official capacity; ANGELICA MELGAR, in individual/official capacity; DOES, 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** * 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). Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Edward Plummer, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging constitutional violations stemming from a conservatorship. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Because Plummer fails to address in his opening brief the district court’s grounds for summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim or for dismissal of his other claims, we do not consider those decisions. 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.”). We reject as without merit Plummer’s contentions that the district court improperly denied discovery. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 24-6352