Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John P. WARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-16594, 09-17610.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    John P. Warden, Gold Canyon, AZ, pro se.
    Donald Peder Johnsen, Esquire, Flynn P. Carey, Gallagher & Kennedy PA, William W. Holder, Skarecky & Holder PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment in favor of defendants on John P. Warden’s (‘Warden”) equal protection, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders entered on December 16, 2008 and July 1, 2009.

We do not consider Warden’s arguments that were not specifically and distinctly argued the opening brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthome, 520 F.3d 1024,1033 (9th Cir.2008).

Warden’s remaining contentions concerning the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment are unpersuasive.

We vacate the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Coolidge Unified School District because there is no indication in the record that the district court considered Warden’s pro se status or found his action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. See Miller v. L.A. County Bd. of Edue., 827 F.2d 617, 619-20 (9th Cir.1987); see also McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, 253 (9th Cir. 1995) (the district court must explain how it exercised its discretion in calculating an attorney’s fee award).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.