Soper v. United States District Courts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JERRY BENJAMIN SOPER III, No. 24-4160 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00314-FWS-ADS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Benjamin Soper III appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* 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).

Because Soper does not challenge the district court’s ground for dismissal of his action in his opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (Oct. 8, 1993) (explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4160