Richard Vickerman v. James Bixler ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JAN 12 2012
    
                                                                             MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    
    
    
    
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    
    
    RICHARD C. VICKERMAN,                             No. 10-16364
    
                   Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:03-cv-00222-LRH-
                                                      VPC
      v.
    
    JAMES M. BIXLER; et al.,                          MEMORANDUM *
    
                   Defendants - Appellees.
    
    
    
                        Appeal from the United States District Court
                                 for the District of Nevada
                         Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
    
                               Submitted December 19, 2011 **
    
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
           Richard C. Vickerman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
    
    his action arising from an inspection of, and his eviction from, a rental unit
    
    financed by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
    
    (“HUD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
    
              *
                 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
              **
                 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 
    453 F.3d 1175
    , 1178 (9th
    
    Cir. 2006) (summary judgment); Clinton v. Babbitt, 
    180 F.3d 1081
    , 1086 (9th Cir.
    
    1999) (sovereign immunity); Moore v. Brewster, 
    96 F.3d 1240
    , 1243 (9th Cir.
    
    1996) (judicial immunity). We affirm.
    
             The district court properly granted summary judgment on Vickerman’s
    
    claims seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Fourth
    
    Amendment rights because Vickerman failed to provide any admissible evidence
    
    to rebut defendants’ showing that private parties managed the apartment complex
    
    and conducted the inspection of Vickerman’s rental unit. See Sutton v. Providence
    
    St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 
    192 F.3d 826
    , 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (the ultimate issue in
    
    determining whether a person is subject to suit under § 1983 is whether the alleged
    
    infringement of federal rights is fairly attributable to the government).
    
             The district court properly granted summary judgment on Vickerman’s
    
    claims brought under the Fair Housing Act because Vickerman failed to raise a
    
    genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against him
    
    on the basis of his disability or denied him any reasonable requests for
    
    accommodation. See Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 
    343 F.3d 1143
    , 1146-47 (9th Cir.
    
    2003).
    
    
    
    
                                               2                                     10-16364
          The district court properly dismissed Vickerman’s civil rights claims against
    
    HUD as barred by sovereign immunity. See Orff v. United States, 
    358 F.3d 1137
    ,
    
    1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well settled that the United States is a sovereign, and,
    
    as such, is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived such immunity and
    
    consented to be sued.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    
          The district court properly dismissed Vickerman’s claims against Las Vegas
    
    Township Justice of the Peace Bixler as barred by judicial immunity. See Pierson
    
    v. Ray, 
    386 U.S. 547
    , 553-54 (1967).
    
          Vickerman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    
          We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    
    in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    
          Vickerman’s pending motions are denied.
    
          AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
                                               3                                     10-16364