Opinion
21-55005
09-23-2021
DAVID DARYL JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDER BROUWERS, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:20-cv-07067-MWF-PLA for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 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.