Jay Johnson v. Winn Properties , 446 F. App'x 939 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAY JOHNSON, No. 09-55184
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00091-SGL-JCR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
WINN PROPERTIES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jay Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action under the Fair Housing Act arising from his eviction from low income
housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and
may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d
*
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).
1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Johnson’s action was proper because Johnson failed to state a
claim for housing discrimination or violations of state law, despite having been
granted leave to amend. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 51066(c) (“Before a
right to a hearing vests, the tenant shall pay rent for the two-week hearing period to
the owner or to an escrow account of the agency. . . .”); Giebeler v. M & B Assocs.,
343 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of handicap discrimination claim
under the Fair Housing Act); Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 250 (9th
Cir. 1997) (Fair Housing Act provides a private right of action for an “aggrieved
person” subjected to “an alleged discriminatory housing practice” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Wiley v. County of San Diego, 966 P.2d 983,
985 (Cal. 1998) (elements of legal malpractice); Davidson v. City of Westminster,
649 P.2d 894, 901 (Cal. 1982) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional
distress).
We do not consider facts presented for the first time on appeal. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-55184