GRIGSBY v. VON BLANCKENSEE (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Philip Andra Grigsby appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing Grigsby's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In the petition, Grigsby claimed the denial of email access and access to the courts, that legal mail had been opened outside of Grigsby's presence, and that Grigsby had been subjected to harassment. Grigsby also claimed that prison staff harass transgender inmates.

Grigsby's opening brief fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any argument that the district court erred in its conclusion that these claims must be pursued in a civil rights action rather than in a habeas proceeding. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that this court “cannot manufacture arguments for an appellant” and therefore “will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant's opening brief” (internal quotations omitted)).

To the extent Grigsby argues entitlement to a recalculation of custody credits, we do not consider that claim because it was not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Grigsby's request to proceed in forma pauperis is unnecessary because in forma pauperis status was granted in the district court proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Grigsby's motions for appointment of counsel are denied.

AFFIRMED.