KEVIN ALLEN V. S. RIMBACH, No. 21-15203 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN ALLEN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15203 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01653-DAD-SAB MEMORANDUM* S. RIMBACH; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his discrimination 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. Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, * 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). 1063 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, assuming without deciding that Allen has dyslexia and is disabled under the ADA, Allen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison discriminated against him because of his dyslexia. See Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 949-51 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth elements of a Title II ADA claim). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motions for appointment of counsel because Allen failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel). Allen’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-15203

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.