James R. Stein; Carol A. Stein v. Creekside Seniors L.p.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES R. STEIN; CAROL A. STEIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CREEKSIDE SENIORS L.P.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35249
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00432-CWD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 26, 2017***
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
James R. Stein and Carol A. Stein appeal pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in their action alleging claims under the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”) and Rehabilitation Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-35249
We review de novo. DuBois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453
F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1057-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper on the Steins’ claim that defendant failed to
accommodate Mr. Stein’s disability in relation to the secondary exit because the
Steins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the secondary
exit was related to Mr. Stein’s disability. See Dubois, 453 F.3d at 1179 (elements
of failure-to-accommodate claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Steins’ claims
that defendant otherwise failed to accommodate Mr. Stein’s disability in relation to
the no-smoking policy, written assignment of a parking space, and installation of
HUD compliant reinforcements on a shower grab bar because the Steins failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their requests were reasonable
or necessary. See Giebler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1155-57 (9th Cir.
2003) (discussing causation and reasonableness in an FHA request for
accommodation).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Steins’
retaliation claim under the FHA because the Steins failed to raise a genuine dispute

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-35249
of material fact as to whether defendant subjected them to an adverse action. See
Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth
elements of a retaliation claim under the FHA).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Steins’ motion
to compel discovery because the Steins failed to establish that the denial resulted in
actual and substantial prejudice. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th
Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining district court’s broad
discretion to deny discovery).
We reject as without merit the Steins’ contention that the district court was
biased.
The Steins “motion to transmit several physical exhibits” (Docket Entry No.
14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --