DOMINIC DINISH V. ELAN REAL ESTATE GROUP, No. 16-36016 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOMINIC DINISH; PRINCILLA JOHNSON DINISH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-36016 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00565-JCC Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. ELAN REAL ESTATE GROUP; BRYSON SQUARE APTS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Dominic Dinish and Princilla Johnson Dinish appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Seventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. The Dinishes have failed to address in their opening brief any of the grounds for summary judgment, and have therefore waived their challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). We reject as without merit the Dinishes’ contentions that the district court improperly relied on false statements made by defendants and that the Dinishes were improperly denied the ability to proceed with their lawsuit. 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); see also 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.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-36016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
