Jean Paul LAUREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: September 15, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jean Paul Lauren, Pro Se Kyle Patrick Chenoweth, State of Montana Department of Justice Agency, Legal Services Bureau, Helena, MT, John C. Melcher, Assistant Attorney General, Montana Department of Justice, Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees
Jean Paul Lauren appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment and dismissal order in his action alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lauren's ADA reasonable accommodation claim because Lauren failed to file his claim within the applicable statute of limitations period. See Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4) (party has, at most, 300 days to file a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination under the Montana Human Rights Act); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (for ADA claims, courts apply the statute of limitations for the most analogous state law).
The district court properly dismissed Lauren's RICO and defamation claims because Lauren 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 construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a RICO claim); Lee v. Traxler, 385 Mont. 354, 384 P.3d 82, 86 (2016) (elements of a defamation claim under Montana law).
Denial of Lauren's request for leave to amend his RICO and defamation claims was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.