Ethan E. Printemps-Herget v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ETHAN E. PRINTEMPS-HERGET,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35230
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00476-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 20, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ethan E. Printemps-Herget appeals pro se the district
court’s dismissal of his disability discrimination claims based on his termination
* 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).
FILED
MAR 25 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
from the United States Postal Service (USPS) in December 2014.1 We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
At a 2020 pretrial conference, the district court allowed Printemps-Herget,
over the Postmaster General’s objection, to modify his theory of the case from one
of actual hamstring disability to one based on a “record of” or being “regarded as”
having a hamstring disability. However, the modification was premised on
Printemps-Herget’s production of a 2013 Equal Employment Opportunity
Complaint (2013 EEO Complaint) from a different USPS station, which allegedly
contained mention of his hamstring injury, and Printemps-Herget’s ability to
demonstrate that his supervisors had knowledge of the complaint. After
Printemps-Herget did not comply with the court’s instruction to produce the 2013
EEO Complaint and did not produce any other evidence to prove that his
supervisors believed he had a record of disability, the district court dismissed the
case for “not having evidence on which a rational jury could rely to support any of
the claims.”
The district court properly dismissed the case. Printemps-Herget abandoned
his actual disability claim, leaving only the “record of” and “regarded as” theories
1 Printemps-Herget also raises concerns with pre-trial discovery procedures, that he
could not name individual USPS employees as defendants, and the effectiveness of
his pro bono counsel in district court. However, these issues are not properly
before the court where Printemps-Herget concedes that he only challenges “the
decision to dismiss the case before trial.”

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to proceed to trial. But without the 2013 EEO Complaint, Printemps-Herget
offered no evidence that those involved in his termination ever perceived him as
having a history of disability. See K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., Haw., 665
F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (establishing appellant’s burden on appeal).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --