FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9435944
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Raul Arellano v. Michael Santos

No. 9435944 · Decided October 30, 2023
No. 9435944 · Ninth Circuit · 2023 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 30, 2023
Citation
No. 9435944
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL ARELLANO, No. 21-56348 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02391-BTM-WVG v. MICHAEL BALBIN SANTOS, Primary MEMORANDUM* Care Provider; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES; DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 30, 2023** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Raul Arellano appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary * 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). judgment in favor of the defendants and the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. A party’s opening brief must include its arguments, including contentions and reasoning. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). This court does not consider matters that are not “specifically and distinctly argued” in an appellant’s opening brief. Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986)). We cannot identify a specific and distinct argument against the district court’s judgment in Arellano’s opening brief, and we are compelled to strike it and dismiss the appeal. See Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1(a); Cf. Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Mindful of the harshness of this rule, we have reviewed the district court record, and we are satisfied that the district court did not err. Cf. Sekiya, 508 F.3d at 1200. DISMISSED. 2
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Raul Arellano v. Michael Santos in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 30, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9435944 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →