Volis v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles Employees
670 F. App'x 543
9th Cir.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Richard J. Volis sued asserting federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and state-law tort claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for noncompliance with the California Government Claims Act; Volis appealed.
- Volis alleged discrimination and retaliation under ADA/RA but provided few factual allegations supporting elements of those claims.
- Volis failed to file a timely government claim required by California law before bringing state tort claims; he later filed a belated claim but did not properly raise timeliness below.
- The district court denied Volis leave to amend and denied leave to file a sur-reply; it found amendment would be futile and that defendants’ reply raised no new issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of ADA/RA claims | Volis: alleged disability discrimination and retaliation | Defendants: factual allegations are insufficient to plead elements | Court: Dismissed — pleadings fail to state plausible ADA/RA claims |
| Timeliness of state tort claims under CA Gov't Claims Act | Volis: exceptions (continuing violation, equitable estoppel, discovery rule) excuse late claim | Defendants: plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory pre-filing claim requirement | Court: Dismissed state claims for failure to file timely claim; Volis did not plead facts to invoke exceptions |
| Leave to amend | Volis: requested further leave to cure defects | Defendants: amendment would be futile given deficiency | Court: Denied leave to amend as futile |
| Leave to file sur-reply | Volis: sought to respond to reply brief | Defendants: reply raised no new issues | Court: Denied sur-reply; district court had reviewed briefing and found no new issues |
| Private right under Section 8 housing voucher program | Volis: claimed beneficiary status and private right of action | Defendants: regulatory scheme does not create private cause of action for his claims | Court: Volis’s Section 8 private-right argument unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must allege plausible claims)
- Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of ADA retaliation claim)
- Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of ADA and §504 discrimination claims)
- Barker v. Riverside Cty. Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (denial of leave to amend when amendment is futile)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1982) (standard for considering sur-reply requests)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 525 P.2d 701 (Cal. 1974) (compliance with California claim-presentation statute is mandatory)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)