This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
PHOENIX ART MUSEUM,
Defendant - Appellee.
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01833-JAT
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
PREGERSON, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Wayne Coleman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Sosa v.
DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Coleman’s amended complaint
without leave to amend because Coleman pled that the remedy he seeks is limited
to a monetary award and that he does not want injunctive relief. See Wander v.
Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Damages are not recoverable under Title
III of the ADA — only injunctive relief is available for violations of Title III”).
We assume that the district court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any claim that Coleman may have sought to allege under Arizona
law, and we therefore construe the dismissal of any such claim to have been
without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046
(9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state
claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state