Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michelle C. GABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON CORRECTION CENTER FOR WOMEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner Michelle C. Gable appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her 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. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gable's deliberate indifference claim because Gable failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Gable's hypersensitivity to chemical irritants and pollutants. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057–61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gable's ADA Title II claim against defendants Wofford, Carei, Clark, Shulze, Perkins, and Anderson-Logano in their official capacities because, assuming without deciding that Gable is an individual with a disability, Gable failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants intentionally discriminated against her by reason of her disability. See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of an ADA Title II claim).
Summary judgment was proper on Gable's ADA Title II claim against defendants Wofford, Carei, Clark, Shulze, Perkins, and Anderson-Logano 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[.]”).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
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.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-35548
Decided: August 27, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)