STROJNIK v. ORANGEWOOD LLC (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Peter Strojnik, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of standing. D'Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Strojnik's ADA claim for lack of Article III standing because Strojnik failed to allege that the ADA barriers he identified affected him because of his disabilities. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (an ADA plaintiff lacks standing “if the barriers he seeks to enjoin do not pose a real and immediate threat to him due to his particular disability”).

We do not consider 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.