NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN A. TANNER, No. 19-35854
Plaintiff-Appellant, 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