Kevin Allen v. S. Rimbach;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. RIMBACH; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15203
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01653-DAD-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his discrimination action alleging violations of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052,
* 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
OCT 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15203
1063 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, assuming
without deciding that Allen has dyslexia and is disabled under the ADA, Allen
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison
discriminated against him because of his dyslexia. See Updike v. Multnomah
County, 870 F.3d 939, 949-51 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth elements of a Title II
ADA claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motions for
appointment of counsel because Allen failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for
appointment of counsel).
Allen’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --