Larry Johnson v. Guardian Management

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY JOHNSON; MICHELLE HUME, No. 22-35775

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. Nos. 3:21-cv-00947-JR 3:21-cv-01439-JR v.

GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT; LISA MEMORANDUM* SIMONSON; KELLY PAINE; THOMAS BARRY BRENNEKE, Jr.; GUARDIAN REAL ESTATE SERVICES; UPTOWN TOWER APARTMENTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 16, 2024**

Before: SCHROEDER, VANDYKE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Larry Johnson and Michelle Hume appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment in their consolidated action alleging various claims under the Fair

* 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). Housing Act (“FHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for failure

to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272

F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims

arising from their rent payment deadline because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether they were discriminated or retaliated against

by defendants. See Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453

F.3d 1175, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements of discrimination claim

on the basis of handicap under the FHA); Walker, 272 F.3d at 1128 (setting forth

elements of retaliation claim under the FHA).

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claims because

plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, 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 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).

2 22-35775 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-35775