From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Tacoma Cmty. Coll.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 7, 2014
No. 12-35954 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2014)

Opinion

No. 12-35954 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05614-BHS

04-07-2014

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WALD"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 817 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for re-enrollment to the college, and whether she was denied re-enrollment because of her disability. See E.R.K. v. Haw. Dep't of Educ., 728 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2013) (listing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of the ADA and explaining the burden of persuasion on the "otherwise qualified" element); Wong, 192 F.3d at 822 (discussing the definition of "qualified"); see also Wash. State Commc'n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 293 P.3d 413, 42122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of prima facie case of discrimination under the WLAD).

We reject Robinson's contentions concerning judicial bias, set forth in her September 11, 2013 notice, as unsupported by the record.

Tacoma Community College's motion for judicial notice, filed on April 26, 2013, is granted.

Robinson's motion for judgment, filed on July 12, 2013, is denied.

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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Tacoma Cmty. Coll.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 7, 2014
No. 12-35954 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Robinson v. Tacoma Cmty. Coll.

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TACOMA COMMUNITY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 7, 2014

Citations

No. 12-35954 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2014)