David Daryl Jones v. Sander Brouwers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID DARYL JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SANDER BROUWERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-55005
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07067-MWF-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
David Daryl Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 2000a action alleging discrimination by a car
dealership. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (b)(6). Colony Cove
* 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).
FILED
SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55005
Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones only
seeks damages, and damages are not available for violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000a
et seq. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3; Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S.
400, 402 (1968) (“When a plaintiff brings an action under [Title II], he cannot
recover damages.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --