Cattanach v. Maricopa County Community College District

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-72
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONNA LYNN CATTANACH, No. 24-72 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 4:22-cv-00572-RCC v. MEMORANDUM* MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, (MCCCD); DERIC HALL, named as Dr. Deric Hall, Director EEO; MELINDA CARABALLO, Acting Director EEO; SAMANTHA CRANDALL, PhD, Manager, Phoenix College Learning Commons,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Donna Lynn Cattanach appeals pro se from the district court’s order

* 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). dismissing her action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act and other federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

affirm.

We do not consider the merits of the district court’s dismissal because

Cattanach did not challenge the grounds for the dismissal in her opening brief. See

Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e

will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening

brief.”).

Contrary to Cattanach’s contentions, the district court did not violate

Cattanach’s due process rights, or any right to a jury trial, by dismissing her action

after providing her notice and an opportunity to respond. See Franklin v. Oregon,

662 F.2d 1337, 1340–41 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that parties are entitled to

notice and an opportunity to respond when courts contemplate dismissing for

failure to state a claim); cf. Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 831 F.2d 1440, 1447

(9th Cir. 1987) (holding that there is no right to a jury trial where there is no

genuine dispute of material fact for a jury to resolve).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

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

Defendants’ motion to strike Cattanach’s second reply brief (Docket Entry

No. 38) is granted. The clerk will strike the reply brief filed at Docket Entry No.

2 24-72 37.

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-72