FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA B. SHAPIRO, No. 13-56590
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03177-JGB-
FMO
v.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN UNIVERSITY MEMORANDUM*
SCHOOL OF LAW; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 15, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, GRABER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joshua
Shapiro’s second motion for leave to amend his complaint. Shapiro provided no
explanation for why he did not include the additional allegations in his earlier
*
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).
Page 2 of 2
pleadings, and the court properly found that permitting him to amend his complaint
at that point in the litigation would prejudice the defendants. See
Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952–53 & n.9 (9th
Cir. 2006) (stating standard).
2. Shapiro also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
the defendants on his claims for discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent
infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the grant of summary judgment for the
reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned order. For example, the district
court correctly determined that the evidence in the record did not raise a triable
issue of material fact as to whether defendants denied Shapiro accommodations for
his learning disability. Similarly, the district court appropriately found that
Shapiro was not subjected to any retaliatory action by defendants, who neither
failed to provide the necessary documents to support Shapiro’s scholarship
application nor denied Shapiro access to Westlaw.
AFFIRMED.