Phifer v. Sacramento City & County Housing & Redevelopment Agency ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES BRYANT PHIFER, No. 09-17222
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00747-LKK-
DAD
v.
SACRAMENTO CITY AND COUNTY MEMORANDUM *
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY and ANNE MOORE, Executive
Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
James Bryant Phifer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action alleging that defendants discriminated against him on the
*
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).
basis of his race and disability by denying his reasonable accommodation request
to transfer to another housing unit, and changing his enrollment date on the waiting
list for a Housing Choice Voucher program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Gamble
v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997), and for an abuse of
discretion the denial of leave to amend, Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d
992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phifer’s
discrimination claims because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether defendants denied his transfer request because of his race or disability,
failed to accommodate his disability, or changed his Housing Choice Voucher
program enrollment date. See Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041,
1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act);
Gamble, 104 F.3d at 306-07 (Fair Housing Act); Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys.
Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (Title VI), overruled on other grounds
by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (en
banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Phifer’s motion to
amend his complaint after the scheduling order deadline because Phifer failed to
2 09-17222
show “good cause.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09
(9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard applies when a plaintiff seeks
to amend a complaint after the scheduling order deadline, and the primary
consideration in the good cause determination is the “diligence of the party seeking
the amendment”).
Phifer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Phifer’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal.
See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146
(9th Cir. 2008).
We deny Phifer’s motion to strike and request for judicial notice. We grant
defendants’ request for judicial notice.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17222