22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T451,MEMORANDUM Jay Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him in forma pauperis status in his action under the Fair Housing Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. Johnson does not raise the district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status in his brief, and thus it is waived. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Johnson’s contention and to the extent that he raised it before the district court, there was no error in failing to consolidate this case with Johnson’s other federal action that was already pending on appeal when Johnson filed this case. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T483,

MEMORANDUM

Jay Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him in forma pauperis status in his action under the Fair Housing Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

Johnson does not raise the district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status in his brief, and thus it is waived. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Contrary to Johnson’s contention and to the extent that he raised it before the district court, there was no error in failing to consolidate this case with Johnson’s other federal action that was already pending on appeal when Johnson filed this case.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.