Norman Katz, pro se v. JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the Treasury

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN KATZ, pro se,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the Treasury,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15654
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00599-ACK-
RLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Norman Katz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following a
four-day bench trial, in his action alleging disability discrimination and failure to
reasonably accommodate claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(“Rehabilitation Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

for clear error, Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Katz failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the IRS did not provide him reasonable
accommodations for his disability and that Katz was terminated because of his
disability. See Humphrey v. Mem. Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137, 1139 (9th
Cir. 2001) (stating elements of reasonable accommodation and unlawful discharge
claims). Katz’s contentions that the district court applied an incorrect “reasonable
accommodation” standard, or failed to identify the cause of Katz’s termination, are
without merit.
Because Katz did not include the trial transcript for any other error at trial
that he raises on appeal, we do not consider these errors. See Fed. R. App. P.
10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. Ctr. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991)
(dismissing appeal of pro se appellant who did not provide relevant trial
transcripts).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first
13-15654 2

-- 2 of 3 --

time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-15654 3

-- 3 of 3 --