Case Name: Thomas O. SPICER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 376 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 08-56262
Parties: Thomas O. SPICER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
Thomas O. SPICER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-56262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 20, 2010.
Thomas O. Spicer, Oxnard, CA, pro se. Martin R. Berman, Law Offices of James Aaron Pilaster, Los Angeles, CA, David H. Hirsch, Esquire, Simi Valley City Attorneys Office, Simi Vally, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and we therefore deny Spicer’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas O. Spicer appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") action alleging the City of Simi Valley discriminated against him by issuing him citations for illegal parking. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Spicer's ADA claim because, assuming Spicer was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, he failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he was excluded from participating in, or benefitting from, any service or program because of his disability. See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir.2004) (listing elements for a claim under Title II of the ADA). To the extent Spicer seeks to overturn the state court judgment, we lack jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil COrp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).
Spicer's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.