NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALDEN LAMONT MOORE, No. 15-56027
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00347-JAH-BLM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. HAMMOND; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alden Lamont Moore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
*
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).
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moore’s claim for
monetary damages because Moore failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability. See Duvall
v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (claims for monetary
relief under Title II of the ADA require the plaintiff to establish intentional
discrimination based on deliberate indifference, namely, “both knowledge that a
harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon
that . . . likelihood”).
Moore has waived his right to appeal the district court’s summary judgment
on his claim for injunctive relief. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor
Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A stipulation . . . is tantamount to a
waiver of an issue for appeal.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We reject as meritless Moore’s contentions concerning ineffective assistance
of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985)
(“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of
counsel.”).
Moore’s motion regarding his personal property (Docket Entry No. 28) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-56027