From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valenzuela v. Masoon

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jul 13, 2018
No. 17-17406 (9th Cir. Jul. 13, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-17406

07-13-2018

MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. W. MASOON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00441-FRZ-PSOT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging claims arising under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") related to her conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Mahoney v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Valenzuela's claims against defendants in their individual capacities because as individuals, they are not liable under the ADA. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The ADA applies only to public entities[.]").

Dismissal of Valenzuela's ADA claim against defendant Corizon was proper because Valenzuela failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a Title II ADA claim).

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).

Valenzuela's motions to compel (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Valenzuela v. Masoon

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jul 13, 2018
No. 17-17406 (9th Cir. Jul. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Valenzuela v. Masoon

Case Details

Full title:MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. W. MASOON; et…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 13, 2018

Citations

No. 17-17406 (9th Cir. Jul. 13, 2018)

Citing Cases

Muhammad v. Seibel

Defendants may not be sued in their personal capacities under the Acts. Valenzuela v. Masoon, 730 Fed. Appx.…

Muhammad v. Kesterson

Defendants may not be sued in their personal capacities under the Acts. Valenzuela v. Masoon, 730 Fed. Appx.…