eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-07

Peter Garcia v. Coast Community Health Center ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER GARCIA,                                   No. 21-35555
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:20-cv-02175-MC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COAST COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Peter Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the district court’s
*
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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action because Garcia failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See
    id. at 341-42
    (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Josephs v. Pac.
Bell,
    443 F.3d 1050
    , 1061 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding plaintiff must exhaust ADA
claims with the EEOC before filing suit).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Garcia’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for denial of leave to amend).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to
appellee on the basis of its determination that Garcia’s action was frivolous. See
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n,
    434 U.S. 412
    ,
421-23 (1978).
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                                     21-35555