Harley Z. Kulkin v. Town of Pahrump, an unincorporated town in the State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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
Sheriff’s Office; CANNON, Deputy
Sheriff, individually, and as an employee
of Nye County Sheriff’s 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
No. 12-15968
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02261-PMP-
VCF
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
MAR 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Festival,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 16, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
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
Glidden 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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

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
(2000) (per curiam). Campbell and Glidden are therefore entitled to qualified
immunity. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2085 (2011); see also Tower
v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 916, 920–21 (1984) (analyzing qualified immunity against
§ 1983 civil conspiracy claim in the same manner as any other § 1983 claim).
REVERSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --