STEVE TANNER V. WILLIE COWELL, No. 19-35854 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN A. TANNER, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-35854 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00456-DCN v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIE COWELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Tanner appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, * 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). 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tanner’s motion seeking to enjoin defendant Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s use of roadblocks at wildlife check stations because Tanner failed to demonstrate that such relief is warranted. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Tanner’s request for this court to issue an injunction, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-35854

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.