LIPSEY v. GUZMAN (2018)

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Christopher Lipsey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) ); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lipsey’s action because Lipsey failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a free exercise claim); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a claim under Title II); Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 654, 675-76 (2015) (elements of a claim under the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1).

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).

AFFIRMED.