Amia L. Bryant v. DARRELL STEINBURG, Mayor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIA L. BRYANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DARRELL STEINBURG, Mayor; MARY
LYNNE VELLINGA, Chief of Staff;
ALLEN WAYNE WARREN, City
Councilman, District 2; TAMERA
VALLEJO, Creator, CEO, E49 Compassion
Village; LARRY JOYNER, St. Pauls Church
(Pearl); LASHELLE DOZIER, Director,
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment
Agency; TYRONE WILLIAMS, Assistant
Director Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency; APRIL ORVILLE,
Housing Liaison, Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency; COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY; ANGELIQUE
ASHBY, Councilwoman, Sacramento City
Council,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15287
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01308-TLN-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-15287
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Amia L. Bryant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and other claims in
connection with a government housing program. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s Fair Housing Act claims
because Bryant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
discriminated against her on the basis of a protected status. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604
(setting forth protected grounds under the Fair Housing Act); Avenue 6E Inv., LLC
v. City of Yuma, Ariz., 818 F.3d 493, 502-03 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the
Fair Housing Act requires either intentional discrimination because of a person’s
protected characteristic or a discriminatory effect on a protected class).
We reject as unsupported by the record Bryant’s contentions that the district
court violated her constitutional rights.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal or documents not filed with the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-15287
F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th
Cir. 1990).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --