JOHNNY LEE HOWZE, AKA J. L. Howze v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, public entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY LEE HOWZE, AKA J. L. Howze,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, public entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-56154
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04067-SVW-
RAO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze, AKA J.L. Howze, appeals pro
se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-56154
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072
(9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howze’s ADA claim for monetary
damages because Howze failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant
intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability. See Duvall v.
County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing
elements of a Title II claim under the ADA, and the required showing of
intentional discrimination to state a Title II claim for damages); see also Gonzalez
v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (the court
need not accept as true allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the
complaint); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate
treatment for disability.”).
Howze’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is
denied.
Defendant’s motion to revoke Howze’s in forma pauperis status (Docket
Entry No. 16) is denied. Defendant’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-56154
No. 17) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --