NEAL v. NEAL (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Leland Neal appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a motion for default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Neal's motion for default judgment because defendants served a timely responsive motion to the amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (authorizing entry of default when defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend”).

We do not consider issues not raised in the opening brief. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant ․” (citations omitted) ); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.