RODRICK DEROCK V. BOISE CITY, No. 17-35783 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODRICK GORDON DeROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35783 D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00024-BLWLMB v. BOISE CITY; ADA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Rodrick Gordon DeRock appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging federal claims arising out of a rental dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013). 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). affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because DeRock failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied a reasonable accommodation. See O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth elements of a claim for failure to accommodate under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act); McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1262 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements of a claim for failure to accommodate under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeRock’s request to amend the Case Management Order because DeRock failed to show good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that moving party must show good cause to modify scheduling order). AFFIRMED. 2 17-35783

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.