N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

NEWAY M ENGISTU, a n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

State of C a lifornia e ntity ; and othe rs to be joine d unde r R ule 19 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-56591 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-05427-M W F-PJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HEN, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Ne w ay M e ngistu a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e , the Housing Authority of the C ity of Los Ange l e s (“ H AC LA” ), whic h ha d de n ie d his re que st for a third be droom to housee quipm e nt he c la im e d would bem e dic a lly ne c e ssa ry . He brought this ac tion unde r Title VIII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1968 (theFa ir Housing Ac t), a s a

m e nde d by

the Fa ir Housing Am e ndm e n ts Ac t of 1988, 42 U.S.C . § 3601 e t se q. ; the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t, 42 U.S.C
. § 12131 e t
se q. ; Se c tion 504 of the R e ha bilita tion Ac t of 1973, 29 U.S.C . § 794 e t se q. ; C a lifornia ’ s Unruh C ivil Rights Ac t, C a l. C iv. C ode § 51 e t se q . ; a nd C a lifornia ’ s Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t, C a l. Gov. C ode § 12900 e t se q. All re quire that HAC LA m ake re a sona

ble a c c om

m odations for phy s ic a l disa b ilitie s. The pa rtie s do not dispute

tha t M e ngistu is disa

b le d a nd re q u ire s use of a whe e lc ha ir. He re quire s one be droom for him se lf a

nd one for a

full-tim e atte nda

nt; M e n gistu a ske d

for the third be droom

for the purpose of storing la rge e xe rc ise
e quipm e nt tha

t would be use d to stre ngthe n his a trophy ing m

usc le s. M e ngistu provide d le tte rs from

his m e dic a l provide rs sta ting tha t the e quipm e nt wa s
ne c e ssa ry be c a use it would e n a

ble him to e nga ge in e xe rc ise with thea s sista nc e of
a tra ine r to stre ngthe n his m usc le s a nd im prove his c a

rdiova s c ula

r sy ste m . A gy

m
wa s not a pra c tic a l a lte rnative be c a use , a c c ording to one

of his phy sic ia

n s , it
2“ would ta

ke an a rm y of pe ople : to ge t him the re , to ge t him tra n sfe rre d to the
e quipm e nt” and he would ha ve to stop a fte r only

15 m inute s. Ha

ving the
e quipm e nt in his a

pa rtm e nt, on the othe r hand, would a llow him to e x e rc ise in short inte rva ls throughout the da y . The phy s ic ia

n s a gre e d tha

t M e n gistu c ould do
som e e xe rc ise s without the e quipm e nt, but there wa s no e v ide nc e tha t the be ne fits,
c ardiova sc ula

r or othe rwise , would ha

ve be e n c om

pa ra ble to those provide d by

the
e xe rc ise e quipm e nt; a

rowe r, re c um

be nt bike , a

nd pulle y sy ste m would a llow him to be se c ure ly

se ate d a nd e lim inate the ne e d to m ove unguide d we ights. The doc tors de sc ribe d the e quipm e n t a s a m e dic a l ne c e ssity
. The re is no dispute that HAC LA wa s re q uire d to re a sona

bly a c c om m odate Appe l la n t’ s disa bility . The a g e nc y ’ s re a son for de ny ing a pa rtic ula r
a c c om m odation a

nd the re a sona

ble ne ss of a pa

rtic ula r a c c om m odation a

re m ate ria l que stions of fa c t whic h turn “ on the individual c irc um s ta nc e s of e a c h c a se .” Vinson v . Thomas , 288 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tion omitte d); se e Mustafa v . C

lark C ty . Sc h. Dist. , 157 F.3d 1169, 1176–77 (9th C ir. 1998). In this
c a se , M r. M e ngistu produc e d suffic ie nt m e dic a l doc um e ntation to de fe at HAC L A’ s m o t ion for sum m ary judgm e nt. Give n

the unique c onstra ints on Mr. M e n gistu’ s a

bility to a c c e ss e x te rna l he a lth fa c i litie s , a jury c ould re a s ona

bly find

3that

M r. M e ngistu’ s re que s te d a c c om m odat ion wa s re a s ona

ble and HAC LA’ s de nia l wa s not ba se d on a fa ilure to c e rtify

the ne e d for the e quipm e nt. The distric t c ourt, howe ve r, dism isse d the a c t ion on theground tha t M r. M e n gistu ha d not suffic ie ntly de m o nstra te d a ne xus be twe e n the disa

bility and the
ne e d for a third be droom . B ut the distric t c ourt e rre d in re ly ing on W e i nre ic h v

. Los Ange le

s C o u nty , 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th C ir. 1997). In W e inre ic h , a

de c a de
e la pse d be t we e n the tim e the pla intiff initially offe re d m e d ic a l e vide nc e c e rtify ing his disa bility and the tim e the a ge nc y

sought to c onfirm

tha t the pla intiff wa s still disa ble d a nd e ligiblefor the be ne fit. Se e id. The pla intiff in W e inre ic h did not provide any

upda te d c e rtific at ion. W e he ld the pla intiff ultimate ly fa ile d to show his e xc lusion from

the re le va

nt be ne fit progra

m “ wa s due to his disa

b ility .” Id. He re , the re wa s no sim ila r ne e d for a

ny upda t e d c e rtific ation, a s M r. M e n gistu’ s doc tors tim e ly re sponde d a

nd c o nfirm e d the ne e d for the e quipm e nt. M r. M e ngistu re que ste d the third be droom in Nove m

be r of 2014. Afte r M r. M e n gistu re c e ive d notic e tha t his re que st fa ile d to list the e quipm e nt, a

nd a fte r HAC L A’ s M a

nue l C a ne la spoke with Dr. Ka sz ubowski on the phone on Ja

n ua ry 12, 2015, Doc tors Ka sz ubowski a nd Gure vitc h

e a c h subm itte d le tte rs in Fe brua ry of 2015 sta

ting the l iste d e quipm e nt wa s a m e dic a l ne c e ssity . HAC LA
ne ve rthe le ss de nie d the re que st. This C ourt ha s e m pha siz e d tha

t “ [a ] public
4a ge nc y m ay

re q uire re a sona

ble e vide nc e of a

disa bility be fore providing
a c c om m odations,” but a

n a ge n c y “ m ay not, howe v e r, insist on da ta supporting a
c la im of disa bility be y o nd tha

t whic h would sa

tisfy a re a sona ble e xpe rt in the fie ld.” V inson , 288 F.3d a

t 1153. A re a sona

ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t the
re que s te d a c c om

m odation wa s re a sona

ble and tha

t the a ge nc y

de nie d M r. M e n gistu’ s re que st sole ly be c a use it c h ose to disre ga

rd his m e dic a l e vide n c e , a nd not be c a use of a ny sta le doc um e ntation. The doubts e xpre sse d by

our disse n ting c olle a gue are to be re solve d by the jury . B e c a

u se M r. M e ngistu ha s ra ise d m at e ria l que stions of fa c t surrounding the
re a s ona ble ne s s of his re q

ue s te d a c c om

m odation a

nd HAC LA’ s re a sons for de ny ing it, HAC LA is not e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt on this dispute d re c ord. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5Mengistu v. HACLA , No. 16

- 56591 M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: A disabled plaintiff is entitled to a housing accommodation only if the accommodation “both ‘may be necessary to afford [him] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ’ and [is] ‘reasonable ’ within the meaning of that statute.” Giebeler v. M & B Assocs. , 343 F.3d 1143, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003) ( first alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B))
. Here, Mengistu sought a voucher for a third bedroom to store oversized e xercise equipment. After Mengistu’s doctors submitted letters stating that Mengistu’s requested machines were medically necessary , HACLA sought to verify his eligibility for t he voucher , as it was entitled to do
. Cf. Weinreich v. L.A. Cty. Metro. Tra n sp. Auth. , 114 F.3d 976, 978

– 79 (9th Cir. 1997) ( affirming that a program’s certification requirement did not violate the ADA and he was not excluded from the program based on his disability, but based on his failure to provide updated certification on his di sability) . During this verification process , one doctor acknowledged that the listed machines were not actually medically necessary, and indicated that he had signed the letter only because he believed that the equipment “might give [Mengistu] added motivation to actually attempt to exercise and improve his condition.” Further, both doctors admitted that Mengistu , not the doctors, had 

# FILED
JUL 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL Sfound the equipment and could have stayed active without it , which would have rendered a third bedroom for the equipm ent un necessary . Because the third bedroom was not necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling , Mengistu was not entitled to a three

bedroom voucher and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of De fendant

- Appellee. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.