Edward Tidwell v. Cshp One Lp

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD C. TIDWELL, No. 20-16413

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01368-VC v.

MEMORANDUM* CSHP ONE LP; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Edward C. Tidwell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tidwell’s action with prejudice because Tidwell 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, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content allowing the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged; conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth).

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).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Tidwell’s pending motions and requests are denied.

CSHP One, LP’s request for a hearing to award sanctions, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-16413