Opinion
21-16919
08-18-2022
MITCHELL TAEBEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA; DOUG DUCEY, AZ Governor; MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, AZ Attorney General; MARICOPA COUNTY OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES; MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; DONALD J. TRUMP; WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 16, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01294-ROS-CDB
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Mitchell Taebel appeals pro se from the district court's judgment and order of dismissal for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Taebel brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various government officials following his arrest and detention. We dismiss the appeal.
Taebel's Opening Brief does not comply with the briefing rules set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1, or Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2. Taebel did not even use the Ninth Circuit's Informal Opening Brief form. See 9th Cir. R. 28-1(c). In addition, while we are not required to consider the merits, even construing Taebel's Opening Brief liberally, it does not make a meritorious argument, and the district court did not err in dismissing his Second Amended Complaint. See N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 1997); Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
Thus, we strike Taebel's Opening Brief and dismiss the appeal. See N/S Corp., 127 F.3d at 1146-47; Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l. Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976); cf. Carter v. Commr., 784 F.2d 1006, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 1986).
DISMISSED.
[*] 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).