Hung M. Nguyen v. Yolo County District Attorney Office

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUNG M. NGUYEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YOLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OFFICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15698
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00239-TLN-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hung M. Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his
prosecution for trespassing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15698
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055,
1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985, and state law, because defendant is entitled to prosecutorial
immunity. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity as to § 1983 claims); Sykes v. California,
497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974) (applying prosecutorial immunity to § 1985
claim); Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, 527 P.2d 865, 870-71 (Cal. 1974)
(setting forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity under California Government
Code § 821.6 as to state law claims).
Dismissal of Nguyen’s claim for violation of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was proper because Nguyen failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that defendant intentionally discriminated against him because
of his disability. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138-40
(9th Cir. 2001) (discussing elements of a Title II claim under the ADA, and the
required showing of intentional discrimination to state a Title II claim for
damages).
We reject as without merit Nguyen’s contentions that the district court was
biased and prejudiced against him.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15698
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Nguyen’s motion for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --