eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-09

Jean Paul Lauren v. Montana State University ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN PAUL LAUREN,                               No. 19-35003
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00062-BMM-JCL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jean Paul Lauren appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
and dismissal order in his action alleging claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”), and state law. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
*
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).
review de novo. Puri v. Khalsa,
    844 F.3d 1152
    , 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal
for failure to state a claim); Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego,
    670 F.3d 957
    , 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lauren’s ADA
reasonable accommodation claim because Lauren failed to file his claim within the
applicable statute of limitations period. See
    Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501
    (4) (party
has, at most, 300 days to file a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination under
the Montana Human Rights Act); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc.,
    293 F.3d 1133
    , 1137 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (for ADA claims, courts apply the statute of
limitations for the most analogous state law).
The district court properly dismissed Lauren’s RICO and defamation claims
because Lauren failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc.,
    625 F.3d 550
    , 557 (9th
Cir. 2010) (elements of a RICO claim); Lee v. Traxler,
    384 P.3d 82
    , 86 (Mont.
2016) (elements of a defamation claim under Montana law).
Denial of Lauren’s request for leave to amend his RICO and defamation
claims was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile.
See Gordon v. City of Oakland,
    627 F.3d 1092
    , 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
2                                     19-35003
standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if
amendment would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3                                    19-35003