Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0436-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOSTER CITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-15809.
    D.C. No. CV-01-04892-CRB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2002.
    Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nathan Burgess appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1035 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Burgess alleged that the City defendants violated the ADA by not permitting holders of “disability passes” to receive a discounted fare on SamTrans express buses. The district court properly dismissed this claim because Burgess did not allege that he was denied services, or was treated differently than non-disabled passengers. See Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.1997); 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

The district court properly dismissed Burgess’ claim that the City defendants violated the ADA by not providing express bus service on Sundays because the Sam-Trans schedule does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. See id.

Burgess’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.