Edward C. Tidwell v. Cshp One Lp;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD C. TIDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CSHP ONE LP; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16413
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01368-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Edward C. Tidwell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,
* 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
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16413
1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tidwell’s action with prejudice
because Tidwell failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state
a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681
(2009) (a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
allowing the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged; conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Tidwell’s pending motions and requests are denied.
CSHP One, LP’s request for a hearing to award sanctions, set forth in the
answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a motion under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 38.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --