John P. Warden v. Coolidge Unified School District

09-16594Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit05.10.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for***
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN P. WARDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Nos. 09-16594,
09-17610
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02273-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 22, 2010***
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16594 2
We affirm the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment in favor of
defendants on John P. Warden’s (“Warden”) equal protection, Title VII, and
Americans with Disabilities Act claims for the reasons stated in the district court’s
orders entered on December 16, 2008 and July 1, 2009.
We do not consider Warden’s arguments that were not specifically and
distinctly argued the opening brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne,
520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008).
Warden’s remaining contentions concerning the district court’s dismissal
and summary judgment are unpersuasive.
We vacate the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Coolidge Unified
School District because there is no indication in the record that the district court
considered Warden’s pro se status or found his action to be frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation. See Miller v. L.A. County Bd. of Educ., 827
F.2d 617, 619-20 (9th Cir. 1987); see also McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d
248, 253 (9th Cir. 1995) (the district court must explain how it exercised its
discretion in calculating an attorney’s fee award).
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.