DENNIS HOOPER V. USHUD, No. 17-35674 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS RUSSELL HOOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35674 D.C. No. 6:17-cv-00031-MC v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; COOSCURRY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Dennis Russell Hooper appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Hooper’s ADA claims was proper because Hooper failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants discriminated against Hooper due to his disability, or denied Hooper any public accommodations because of his disability. See Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of a Title II ADA claim); see also Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of a Title III discrimination claim). 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. 2 17-35674

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.