N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
STEVEN G. GAR C IA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JEH JOHNSON, Se c re ta

ry , De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la n d Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16409 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00022-B PV
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na B e rnardo P. Ve la sc o, M a g istra te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DUFFY, ** Distric t Judge
. This a

ppe a l a rise s from the Distric t C ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda nt-Appe lle e Je h Johnson, Se c re ta ry of the De pa

rtm e n t of Hom e la

n d 

# FIL ED
N OV 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

n d 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 Ke vin Thom a s Duffy , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Se c urity

(“ D HS” or “ De fe nda

nt” ), and de nia l of se ve ra l othe r m otions. PlaintiffAppe l la n t Ste ve n Ga

rc ia (“ Garc ia ” or “ Pla intiff” ) wa s a probationa

ry e m p loy e e at U.S. Im m igrations a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e nt (“ IC E” ) who wa s fire d for
m isc o nduc t. Ga

rc ia , a n Ira q W ar ve te ran, c la im s tha

t the m isc onduc t

wa s c a use d by post-tra um atic stre ss disorde r (“ PTSD” ) and a s suc h, his te rm ination viola te d the R e h a b ilita tion Ac t of 1973, 29 U.S.C . § 791 e t se q. Garc ia a

ppe a ls the Distric t C ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, de n ia l of his m otion to strike the De c l ara tion of M atthe w Alle n

(“ Alle n De c la ra tion” ) and for sa

nc tions, a nd de n ia l of his m otion to disqua lify

the U.S. Attorne y ’ s Offic e for the Distric t of Ariz ona

(“ USAO” ) and IC E’ s Offic e of Ge ne ra l C ounse l (“ IC E OGC ” ) a s c ounse l for De fe nda nt. 1. W e re vie wa

distric t c ourt’ s disc ove ry rulings, “ ‘ inc luding theim position of disc ove ry

sa nc t ions, for a

buse of disc re tion.’ ” R & R Sails, Inc . v . Ins. C o. of Pe nn. , 673 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l c ita t ion om itte d). Whe n a
m otion is den ie d a s m oot, howe ve r, re vie w is de novo. Se e Sw . C tr. for Biologica l Div e rsity v . U.S. Bure a u of Re c lamation , 143 F.3d 515, 522 (9th C ir. 1998). DHS’ s writte n

disc ove ry

c orre c te d a

ny a spe c ts of the initia l disc losure s tha t we re not c orre c t, a s re quire d by R ule 26(a ) a

nd (e ) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e d ure . As suc h, the de n ia l of the m otion to strike the Alle n De c la

ra tion a nd for sa nc tions is a ffirm e d.

22. To e sta blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination unde r the R e ha bilita tion Ac t, Ga rc ia m ust show tha

t (1) he is disa

ble d (whic h the pa rtie s do not c onte st); (2) he is qua lifie d with or without re a sona ble a c c om

m odation; a

nd (3) he wa s fire d be c a use of his disa

bility
. Se e Sampe r v . Prov i de nc e St. Vinc e nt Me d . C tr. , 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th C ir. 2012) (e le m e nts of a prim a fa c ie c a se ); C

oons v . Se c ’yof U.S. De p’t of Tre a sury , 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th C ir. 2004) (R e ha b ilita tion Ac t sta nda rds). An individua

l is “ qua lifie d” if he c an pe rform the e sse ntia l func tions, i.e ., the funda

m e nta l dutie s, of his job. Sampe r , 675 F.3d a t 1237; Dark

v . C urry C nty
. , 451 F.3d 1078, 1087 (9th C ir. 2006). “ This c ourt re vie ws a distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t of a

R e ha bilita tion Ac t c la im denov o. ” C oons , 383 F.3d at 884. W e “ m a

y a ffirm a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord, e ve n one not re lie d upon by the distric t

c ourt.” C

urle y v . C ity of N . Las Ve gas , 772 F.3d 629, 631 (9th C ir. 2014). The re c ord on a

ppe a l doe s not ra ise a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r Garc ia wa s qua lifie d without a

n a c c o m m odation a

t the tim e he wa s fire d. Se e Dark , 451 F.3d
at 1086, 1087. M ost of Ga rc i a ’ s e vide nc e doe s not spe ak to his qualific ations
around April 2009, whe

n he wa s te rm inate d. Inste a d, he la rge ly offe rs e vide nc e of qua lific ations from

the y e ars be fore his te rm i nation (positions he he ld prior to joining IC E; Dr. Ga

ugha n’ s 2007 e va luation) a

n d from y e ars a fte r (e d

uc ation a nd
3the ra

py ; Dr. W ilson’ s 2012 e v a luation). Furthe r, tha t e v i de nc e doe s not show tha t Garc ia c an pe rform

the e sse n tia l func t ions of thec rim i na l inve stiga tor position ide n tifie d in the Alle n De c la ra tion, pa rtic ula rly in light of the

PTSD e pisode
. Se e May o v . PC C

Struc turals, Inc

. , 795 F.3d 941, 944 (9th C ir. 2015). His
e m ploy m e nt with other a ge nc ie s, in non-la w e nforc e m e nt positions, doe s not de m onstra

te tha t he is qua lifie d for the c rim ina l inve stiga tor role , a n d the re c ord doe s not pe rm it a

n a sse ssm e nt of ove rla

p of Ga rc i a ’ s prior jobs a

nd the c rim ina l inve stiga tor position. Ga

rc ia ’ s c om

ple tion of IC E tra i ning is m ore probative of his qua lific ations, but the

re c ord c onta ins sc ant e vide n c e a s to thec onte n t of IC E tra ining a nd how it m

ight ha ve re nde re d Ga

rc ia qua lifie d. W ith re spe c t to Ga rc ia ’ s post-te rm inat ion e duc ation a nd the ra py , the re c ord doe s not se t forth a ny e v ide nc e to pe rm it a

c ourt to find tha

t Ga rc ia is qua lifie d . Ga

rc ia a sse rts tha

t he is le ss sym ptom atic , but ha s not se t forth e vide nc e to show tha t be ing le ss sy

m ptom atic is suffic i e nt to re nde r him

a ble to pe rform

the e sse ntia l func tions of a c rim ina l inve stiga tor. Garc ia ’ s m e dic a l re p orts like wise do not c re at e a tria ble issue . In opining that Ga rc ia wa s a ble t o se rve , Dr. W ilson did not c onside r the e s se ntia l func tions of
a c rim i na l inve stiga

tor, a nd c o u ld not ruleout the possibility tha t Ga rc ia would have a sim ila

r e p isode in the future . Dr. Ga u gha n ’ s a na ly sis wa s c onduc te d m ore
4tha

n a y e ar be fore the PTSD e pisode , a n d ne arly two y e a rs be fore Garc ia

wa s fire d. His opinion doe s not a c c ount for thePTSD e pisode or spe ak to Ga rc ia ’ s qua lific ations a

t the tim e of te rm ination. Like wise , Ga

rc ia h a s not ra ise d a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r his propose d
a c c om m odation would rende r him qua lifie d. Se e Humphre

y v . Me m’l Hosps. Ass’n , 239 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th C ir. 2001). There c o rd on a ppe a l doe s not e xpla in if or how we e kly

group the ra

py would ha ve re duc e d the like lihood of a nothe r da nge rous fla shba c k e pisode
. Ac c ordingly , the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to DHS on Ga

rc ia ’ s c l a im

of disc rim ination is a ffirm e d. B e c a use Ga rc ia ha s not ra ise d a ge nuine issue of
m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he c an pe rform the e s se ntia l func tions of the c rim ina l inve stiga tor position, we

do not re a c h the que stion of whe the r Garc ia wa s fire d

“ be c a use of” his disa

b ility
. 1 3. The Distric t

C o urt’ s de te rm inat ion not to disqua lify c ounse l is re vie we d for a b use of disc re tion a

n d should bea ffirm e d a s long a s “ ‘ the re c ord re ve a ls a ny sound ba sis for the c o urt’ s a c t ion.’ ” C ohn v . Rose nfe ld , 733 F.2d 625, 631 (9th C ir. 1984) (inte rna l c i tation omitte d). The re c o rd re ve a ls se ve ra l sound ba se s.

1 B e c a use we a ffirm

the Distric t

C ourt’ s de te rm ination on lia bility , we do not re a c h the que stion of whe the r Garc ia fa ile d to m itiga

t e his da m a g e s. Se e Drink w inev . Fe de rate d Publ’ns, Inc

. , 780 F.2d 735, 738 (9th C i r. 1985). 5First, if a

ny c onflic t e xiste d, Judge Py l e ’ s re c usa l c ure d it. Any c onflic t e xiste d for the l aw c le rk in he r c a

pa c i ty a s la w c le rk; at tim e s re le va

nt, she ha d not be gun working for theUSAO. Se e A riz . R ule s of Prof’ l C onduc t 1.12(b). Se c ond, Garc ia wa ive d the c onflic t whe n he re fuse d Judge Py le ’ s offe r to re c use him se lf. Se e Martine

z v . Tarrant , 59 F. App’ x 998, 999 (9th C ir. 2003). Third, be c a use the la w c le rk ha d

not y e t be g un working a

t the USAO a

n d be c a use Judge Py le re c use d him se lf upon disc ove ring the c o nflic t, a ny c onflic t wa s not im

pute d to the USAO unde r R ule 1.12(c ) of the Ariz ona R ule s of Profe ssiona l C onduc t, a nd like w ise , wa s not im

pute d to IC E OGC . The Distric t C ourt’ s de nia l of the m otion to disqua lify de fe n se c ounse l is a ffirm e d. 4. Ga rc ia ’ s re que st for the fe e s a n d c osts of this a

ppe a l is de nie d. Ac c ordingly , the judgm e nt of the Distric t C ourt is AFFIRM E D
.

6