Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8625801
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Phelps v. California
No. 8625801 · Decided November 13, 2006
No. 8625801·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 13, 2006
Citation
No. 8625801
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Coy Phelps appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Lodi, and its employees, as well as federal and private citizen defendants in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm. Because Phelps’ opening brief does not challenge the legal basis of the district court’s summary judgment, or its earlier order dismissing the federal and private citizen defendants, he has waived the right to challenge those orders. See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 , 929 (9th Cir.2003). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Coy Phelps appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Lodi, and its employees, as well as federal and private citizen defendants in his civil rights action.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Coy Phelps appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Lodi, and its employees, as well as federal and private citizen defendants in his civil rights action.
02Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
03Because Phelps’ opening brief does not challenge the legal basis of the district court’s summary judgment, or its earlier order dismissing the federal and private citizen defendants, he has waived the right to challenge those orders.
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Coy Phelps appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Lodi, and its employees, as well as federal and private citizen defendants in his civil rights action.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Phelps v. California in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 13, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8625801 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.