Opinion

Tyrell Erlebach v. Payette County Board of Commissioners

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
May 23, 2023
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.3%

The opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TYRELL CURTIS ERLEBACH, No. 22-35213

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00173-MDH

v.

MEMORANDUM*

RAJ ENTERPRISES OF CENTRAL

FLORIDA, DBA Pinnacle Laboratories,

DBA Pinnacle Laboratory Services, DBA

Pinnacle Labs; JOSEPH JOHNSON; MILLS

BRINSON III,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

M. Douglas Harpool, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Tyrell Curtis Erlebach appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of

defendants RAJ Enterprises of Central Florida, Joseph Johnson, and Mills Brinson

*

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).

III in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We vacate and remand.

After the district court granted summary judgment for moving defendants in

early 2022, the district court entered judgment in favor of all defendants in the

action and closed the case. However, the district court had not granted summary

judgment for non-moving defendants RAJ Enterprises of Central Florida, LLC,

Joseph Johnson, and Mills Brinson, III, and thus, judgment in favor of those

defendants was premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (explaining that summary

judgment is proper if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment as to these three defendants

and remand for further proceedings.

The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 22-35213

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.