Adeyinka v. Urban Alchemy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 26-1073
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, No. 26-1073 D.C. No. 3:26-cv-00117-SI Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* URBAN ALCHEMY; CITY OF PORTLAND; Supervisor SURGE; Supervisor LEON; DENNIS HESTER; DESIREE SHEPHERD; CENTRAL CITY CONCERN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Emmanuel Adeyinka appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his

* 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). residence at a temporary alternative shelter site. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Adeyinka’s federal Fair Housing Act

(“FHA”) claims because Adeyinka failed to allege facts sufficient to show

discrimination or retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (prohibiting housing

discrimination); 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (prohibiting retaliation for exercising rights

under the FHA); Morris v. W. Hayden Ests. First Addition Homeowners Ass’n,

Inc., 104 F.4th 1128, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2024) (setting forth elements of a hostile

housing environment claim under the FHA); Sw. Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v.

Maricopa Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17 F.4th 950, 960 (9th Cir. 2021)

(explaining that the FHA’s disparate-impact theory prohibits actions that create

a discriminatory effect upon a protected class); San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of

Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 477 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth elements of a

retaliation claim under the FHA).

The district court properly dismissed Adeyinka’s Fourteenth Amendment

claim because Adeyinka failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants

violated his right to procedural due process. See Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of

Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting

forth elements of a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth

2 26-1073 Amendment).

The district court properly dismissed Adeyinka’s breach of contract claim

because Adeyinka failed to allege facts sufficient to show the existence of a

contract or detrimental reliance. See Slover v. Or. State Bd. of Clinical Soc.

Workers, 927 P.2d 1098, 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) (setting forth elements of a

breach of contract claim under Oregon law); see also Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570

F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Sept. 28, 2009) (setting forth

elements of promissory estoppel under Oregon law, including detrimental

reliance).

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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 26-1073