Geonni Ordelli v. Mark Farrell and Associates , 586 F. App'x 355 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 03 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GEONNI ORDELLI,                                  No. 13-35303
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01791-SI
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MARK J. FARRELL; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2014**
    Before:        LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Geonni Ordelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    her action, alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Housing Act
    (“FHA”), 
    42 U.S.C. § 3604
    (a)-(b). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barrett v.
    *
    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).
    Belleque, 
    544 F.3d 1060
    , 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Ordelli’s FHA claim because Ordelli
    failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants engaged in any
    discriminatory housing practice or treated her differently than her roommates based
    on her sex or familial status. See 
    42 U.S.C. § 3604
    (a)-(b) (prohibiting
    discrimination based on sex and familial status by landlords in connection with a
    dwelling); Gamble v. City of Escondido, 
    104 F.3d 300
    , 304 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (applying Title VII discrimination analysis to FHA claims).
    We reject Ordelli’s contentions that the district judge was biased against her,
    and that the district court could have exercised jurisdiction under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    because Ordelli did not sue any state actors. Price v. Hawaii, 
    939 F.2d 702
    , 707-
    08 (9th Cir. 1991).
    We deny as moot appellees’ motion to strike, set forth in their answering
    brief.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    13-35303
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-35303

Citation Numbers: 586 F. App'x 355

Filed Date: 12/3/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023