Case ID: f-appx_17/html/0665-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wanda E. SMITH-JETER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-17079.
    D.C. No. CV-99-05636-AWI.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2001 .
    Decided Aug. 28, 2001.
    
      Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wanda E. Smith-Jeter appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the police department in Smith-Jeter’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that responding officers discriminated against her based on her mental disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

Compensatory damages are not available under Title II of the ADA absent a showing of discriminatory intent. Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.1998). Because Smith-Jeter failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers who came to her house in response to her 9-1-1 calls acted with intent to discriminate, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the police department. See id.; Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130.

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