CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY V. M. GUZMAN, No. 18-16506 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16506 D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00896-AWI-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* M. GUZMAN, Psych Tech at Corcoran State Prison, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Christopher Lipsey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 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. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lipsey’s action because Lipsey failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a free exercise claim); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a claim under Title II); Allen v. City of Sacramento, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654, 67576 (Ct. App. 2015) (elements of a claim under the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). 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. 2 18-16506

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.