NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENNETH HILL, No. 19-15038

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03020-JAM-KJN v.

MEMORANDUM* H. COTTRELL, C/O; MURPHY,

Defendants-Appellees, and SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kenneth Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s

*

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 dismissing for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Hill fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, and he has therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).

Because Hill’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenge to the district court’s interlocutory order. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute . . . .”).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15038