Clarence Gipbsin v. M. De Forest
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Clarence Gipbsin (Gipbsin) appeals pro se from judgments in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation for exercise of his First Amendment rights and excessive use of force by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation personnel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm on the excessive force claim and reverse and remand on the retaliation claim.
Gipbsin’s informal opening brief raises various issues relating, to the district court’s orders and proceedings. Gipbsin’s informal opening brief, however, fails to raise any cogent arguments regarding how the district court erred. This Court therefore declines to make any findings on the issues raised in Gipbsin’s opening brief. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988) (“Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). This Court addresses only the substantive issues raised by Court-appointed amicus curiae.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Gipbsin’s First Amendment retaliation claim. We review grants of summary judgment de novo. White v. City of Sparks, 500 F.3d 953, 955 (9th…