TALMADGE TALIB V. PETER NICHOLAS, No. 19-56217 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TALMADGE ADIB TALIB, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 19-56217 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05871-JAK-DFM v. PETER NICHOLAS, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; EDWARD GONZALVES, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; MOYER, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; ANTONIO SANCHEZ, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; ELIEZER VERA, (Captain-So.L.A. Sheriff’s Station) In His Individual Capacity; FRED NUNES, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees, and ROB VAN LINGEN; MIGUEL; JOHN GUERRERO; STEPHEN PARK; JOHN DOE SWANSON; JOHN DOE ANDERSON; JOHN DOE ROMERO; JOHN DOE HOOPER; JOHN DOE MARCHELLO; ALEX GILLINETS; * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. JAMES NORTH; RICH KIGUELMAN; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 9, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges Talmadge Talib appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of traffic stops. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. We decline to consider the constitutional right to travel claim raised for the first time on appeal. Dream Palace v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004). Appellant waived in his opening brief his remaining claims and any further challenges to the district court’s decision. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (issues not supported by argument or discussed in the body of the opening brief are waived). AFFIRMED. 3

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.