Court Opinion

ID: 9841270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 19:00:33.090647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:59.970928
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCIA WILSON,                                  No. 22-55871

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02823-RGK-PD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Marcia Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for

failure to state a claim her employment action alleging discrimination and

retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-

Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s action because Wilson failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that her employer regarded her as having an

impairment within the meaning of the ADA, that her employer had a record of

Wilson’s having had any such impairment, or that her employer retaliated against

her because of protected activity. See Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc., 908 F.3d 428,

433-34 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing elements of a disability discrimination claim

under the ADA); Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 849 (9th Cir. 2004)

(explaining that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under the ADA must show that there

was a causal link between a protected activity and an adverse employment action);

see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); Omar, 813 F.2d at 991 (explaining that a district court may dismiss a

claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) without notice if the claimant

cannot possibly win relief).

      We reject as unsupported by the record Wilson’s contentions that the district

court acted as an advocate for defendant or was biased against her.

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

                                           2                                      22-55871
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3                               22-55871