765 Fed.Appx. 399 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-56154, Howze v. California Department of Corrections

Docket Nº:18-56154
Citation:765 Fed.Appx. 399
Party Name:Johnny Lee HOWZE, aka J. L. Howze, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Rehabilitation, public entity, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorney:Johnny Lee Howze, Pro Se Andrew M. Gibson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Judge Panel:Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 23, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 399

765 Fed.Appx. 399 (9th Cir. 2019)

Johnny Lee HOWZE, aka J. L. Howze, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Rehabilitation, public entity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-56154

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 23, 2019

Submitted April 17, 2019 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Johnny Lee Howze, Pro Se

Andrew M. Gibson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04067-SVW-RAO

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Page 400

MEMORANDUM[**]

California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze, AKA J.L. Howze, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Howze’s ADA claim for monetary damages because Howze failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability. See

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing elements of a Title II claim under the ADA, and the required showing of intentional discrimination to state a Title II claim for damages); see also Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (the court need not accept as true allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the complaint); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The ADA prohibits discrimination because...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP