BLANSETTE v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-16220

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant because Blansette failed to establish genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether he was a qualified individual with a disability or suffered discrimination on that basis, and affirmed the denial of his motion for sanctions.

Bradley Blansette, proceeding without an attorney, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The appellate court reviewed the case from scratch and found that Blansette had not presented sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute on key elements of his ADA claim—specifically, whether he qualified as an individual with a disability or whether the defendant discriminated against him based on disability status.

The court also upheld the district court's rejection of Blansette's request for sanctions against the opposing party, finding that he had not met the requirements for imposing such penalties. The court noted that it would not consider arguments that Blansette raised for the first time in his appeal rather than in the lower court proceedings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Blansette qualified as an individual with a disability under the ADA
Whether defendant discriminated against Blansette based on disability status
Whether sanctions were warranted against opposing counsel

Procedural posture

Blansette appealed pro se from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Housing and Urban Development on his ADA claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Bradley R. Blansette appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his action alleging violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stephens v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 935 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Blansette failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he is a qualified individual with a disability or was discriminated against by the defendant by reason of disability. See Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth elements of an ADA Title II claim); Weinreich v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 1997) (no ADA violation where plaintiffs exclusion from program was based on plaintiffs failure to provide updated certification of a qualifying disability, and not the fact or perception that plaintiff had a disability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blansettes motion for sanctions because Blansette failed to establish grounds for sanctions. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and grounds for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-94 (9th Cir. 2001) (grounds for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the courts inherent power).

We do not consider 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.