Court Opinion

ID: 9840941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 19:02:50.66811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:01.581872
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         SEP 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET LUNDSTROM,                             No. 22-16946

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-06227-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

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

      Margaret Lundstrom appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

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 a

      *
             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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Curtis v. Irwin Indus.,

Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Lundstrom’s action because Lundstrom

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

Lundstrom’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)).

       We reject as unsupported by the record Lundstrom’s contention that the

district court was biased against her.

                                             2                                      22-16946
      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       22-16946