MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael Angelo Lena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Lena fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing his action for failing to prosecute his case following the district court’s order to file an amended complaint. As a result, Lena has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”).

We reject as without merit Lena’s contentions regarding the district court’s bias.

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.