Case ID: f-appx_560/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harley Z. KULKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TOWN OF PAHRUMP, an unincorporated town in the State of Nevada and County of Nye, DBA Pahrump Fall Festival, William A. Kohbarger, individually and in his official capacity as the Manager of the Town of Pahrump, County of Nye, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, DBA Nye County Sheriffs Office; Cannon, Deputy Sheriff, individually, and as an employee of Nye County Sheriffs Office, Defendants, and Heath Campbell, individually and in his official capacity with the Pahrump Fall Festival; Paula Glidden, individually and in her official capacity with the Pahrump Fall Festival, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 12-15968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 16, 2014.
    Filed March 4, 2014.
    
      Nancy Theresa Lord, Nancy Lord, Ltd., Pahrump, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca Bruch, Esquire, Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd., Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Heath Campbell and Paula Glidden appeal the district court’s order denying summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Harley Kulkin. Campbell and Glidden contend that the court erred by denying them qualified immunity against Kulkin’s equal protection claim and related civil conspiracy claim.

Campbell and Glidden allegedly enforced a non-profit documentation policy against Kulkin, but not against other vendors at the Pahrump Fall Festival. But Kulkin, unlike the other vendors, registered for a booth on behalf of “self’ rather than on behalf of an organization. And Kulkin concedes that Campbell and Glid-den knew he did not have non-profit status as an individual. He does not assert that Campbell and Glidden knew of any other vendors who lacked non-profit status. A reasonable official in their position could have reasonably believed that Kulkin was not similarly situated to the other vendors with respect to the documentation policy. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam). Campbell and Glid-den are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2085, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011); see also Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 916, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984) (analyzing qualified immunity against § 1983 civil conspiracy claim in the same manner as any other § 1983 claim).

REVERSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.