*1 Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

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 *2 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.

2 17-15854

[*] 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).