Zito v. Sullivan

── Zito v. Sullivan ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORDAN CHRISTOPHER ZITO, No. 25-1406 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00232-ART-CSD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* RYAN SULLIVAN; DAVID CLIFTON; WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DARIN BALAAM; EGAN WALKER; SPARK JUSTICE COURT; NICOLE WALSH; DARBY PHELPS; JEFF HOPPE; MELISSA ROSENTHAL; NICOLE HICKS; TRENTON ROSS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Jordan Christopher Zito appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing without prejudice his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Because Zito does not challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal of his action in his opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we 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) (explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned). Zito’s motion (Docket Entry No. 8) for miscellaneous relief is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-1406