FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARICELA RAMIREZ, No. 12-35869
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01472-ST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAYMOND PETRILLO, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maricela Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing
her action arising from alleged inadequate medical treatment at a private medical
clinic. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
12-35869
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ramirez’s race discrimination claim
because Ramirez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she was discriminated
against in a “place of public accommodation” under Title II of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (prohibiting race discrimination in a “place of public
accommodation,” and listing establishments which constitute places of public
accommodation). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
giving Ramirez leave to amend her race discrimination claim because this
deficiency could not be cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be
cured by amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by not giving Ramirez leave to
add a disability discrimination claim because Ramirez neither alleged
discrimination on the basis of a disability in her complaint nor sought leave to add
such a claim. See Synagogue v. United States, 482 F.3d 1058, 1060 n.4 (9th Cir.
2007) (declining to remand to the district court to allow leave to amend the
complaint to add a new claim where plaintiffs “neither relied on this proposed
2 12-35869
cause of action below nor sought leave of the district court to amend their
complaint to add it”).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35869