James Shirley v. University of Idaho ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES STORM SHIRLEY, No. 19-35176
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00215-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
James Storm Shirley appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and
the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2017) (dismissal for mootness and lack of jurisdiction); Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal under Eleventh
Amendment immunity). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shirley’s ADA and RA claims for
injunctive relief as moot because Shirley is ineligible for readmission to law
school. See Tate v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir. 2010) (a
court lacks jurisdiction when the issues in a case are moot).
To the extent Shirley seeks damages, dismissal of his ADA and RA claims
was proper because Shirley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his need for accommodations. See Duvall v.
County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (to recover monetary
damages under ADA and RA, a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination; the
test for intentional discrimination is deliberate indifference, and “bureaucratic
slippage” or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject as meritless Shirley’s contentions that the parties are diverse and
that the district court was biased.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 19-35176
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35176