PAUL BUSH V. ROBERT POMMER, No. 16-15019 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL BUSH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15019 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00323-JAT v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT LEE POMMER; SHARON POMMER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Paul Bush appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bush’s trespass claim because Bush failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had possession of the land at issue. See MacNeil v. Perkins, 324 P.2d 211, 216 (Ariz. 1958) (under Arizona law, “[a] trespasser is one who does an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner to the injury of the person or property of another” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Bush’s remaining claims because Bush failed to raise them in his opening brief. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 1994) (matter not specifically and distinctly argued in opening brief is waived on review). Bush’s requests for oral argument and to strike defendants’ motion for summary judgment from the record, set forth in his opening brief, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15019

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.