Carey Dwayne Dorsey v. Catholic Health Care West Mercy Hospital and Medical Center

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAREY DWAYNE DORSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE WEST
MERCY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-55059
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02264-JAH-
CAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carey Dwayne Dorsey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-55059 2
(“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dorsey’s action without prejudice
because Dorsey failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
disability discrimination, including that he was disabled within the meaning of the
ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. See Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998,
1003 n.1, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that same analysis applies under the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act and discussing requirements for prima facie case and the
meaning of disabled under those statutes).
We do not consider Dorsey’s Title VII claim because Dorsey raises it for the
first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --