David Jones v. Sander Brouwers ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         SEP 23 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID DARYL JONES,                              No. 21-55005
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07067-MWF-PLA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SANDER BROUWERS,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 14, 2021**
    Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    David Daryl Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 2000a action alleging discrimination by a car
    dealership. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
    dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (b)(6). Colony Cove
    *
    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).
    Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 
    640 F.3d 948
    , 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones only
    seeks damages, and damages are not available for violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000a
    et seq. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3; Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 
    390 U.S. 400
    , 402 (1968) (“When a plaintiff brings an action under [Title II], he cannot
    recover damages.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   21-55005
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-55005

Filed Date: 9/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2021