Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views3 pages
    1. The plaintiff appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. 2. The plaintiff objected to a rule change by the International Paralympics Committee (IPC) that prohibited powerlifters from competing if they had more than a 20-degree loss of elbow extension. The plaintiff had a 29-degree loss and was barred from competing under the new rule. 3. On appeal, the plaintiff did not argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment, but instead argued the court erred in not allowing the plaintiff to discharge his attorney to proceed pro se and amend his complaint to allege a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 108 F.3d 1370 Docket: 96-7874

    Original Title

    Wayne Washington v. Dr. Arnold Illman, International Paralympics Committee, John Does 1 Thru 10, the Last 10 Names Being Fictitious and Intended to Be the Executors, Administrators and Governing Body of the International Paralympics Committee, 108 F.3d 1370, 2d Cir. (1997)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The plaintiff appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. 2. The plaintiff objected to a rule change by the International Paralympics Committee (IPC) that prohibited powerlifters from competing if they had more than a 20-degree loss of elbow extension. The plaintiff had a 29-degree loss and was barred from competing under the new rule. 3. On appeal, the plaintiff did not argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment, but instead argued the court erred in not allowing the plaintiff to discharge his attorney to proceed pro se and amend his complaint to allege a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    33 views3 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. The plaintiff appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. 2. The plaintiff objected to a rule change by the International Paralympics Committee (IPC) that prohibited powerlifters from competing if they had more than a 20-degree loss of elbow extension. The plaintiff had a 29-degree loss and was barred from competing under the new rule. 3. On appeal, the plaintiff did not argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment, but instead argued the court erred in not allowing the plaintiff to discharge his attorney to proceed pro se and amend his complaint to allege a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    108 F.

    3d 1370

    NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED


    AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED
    TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT
    STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY
    CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR
    RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
    Wayne WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Dr. Arnold ILLMAN, International Paralympics Committee,
    John
    Does # 1 thru # 10, The Last 10 Names Being Fictitious and
    Intended to be the Executors, Administrators and Governing
    Body of the International Paralympics Committee, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 96-7874.

    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.


    March 18, 1997.

    APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: WAYNE WASHINGTON, pro se,


    Roslyn Heights, New York
    APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Jack M. Weinstein, Great Neck, New
    York
    PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
    HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr.,* Circuit Judges.
    SUMMARY ORDER
    This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United
    States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Platt, J.), and
    was argued.

    ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,


    ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it
    hereby is AFFIRMED.

    Plaintiff-Appellant Wayne Washington appeals from an order granting the


    motion of defendants Dr. Arnold Illman, International Paralympics Committee,
    and others (collectively "IPC") for summary judgment and dismissing
    appellant's remaining claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
    be granted.

    The IPC is the organizational counterpart for disabled persons to the


    International Olympic Organization. It is an international member organization
    representing disability groups. Appellant objects to an IPC rule amendment that
    prohibited any power-lifting competitor from competing if they have more than
    twenty-degree loss of extension of their elbow. Appellant has a twenty-nine
    degree loss of extension and therefore may not participate under the new rule.

    Appellant alleged that the amended rule was a violation under the Americans
    With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12182(a) and 12132. Appellant
    also asserted a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the appellees'
    motion with respect to the ADA claim and dismissed the remaining claims.

    Appellant does not assert that the district court erred in granting summary
    judgment. Instead, appellant argues that the court erred when it refused to
    permit him to discharge his attorney. He contends that he wanted to appear
    before the court pro se and amend his complaint to allege a violation of the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 792 et seq. This Act prohibits
    discrimination against persons with disabilities by any program or activity
    receiving federal assistance.

    Appellant states in his brief that "[t]he Court denied plaintiff's request [to
    discharge his attorney]." Appellant's Brief at 5. There is no evidence to support
    this statement. First, the district court opinion granting summary judgment and
    dismissing the remaining claims states:

    7 Court notes that when the parties appeared for argument of this motion on May
    The
    31, 1996, plaintiff's counsel, Robert J. Pellicane, Esq., informed the Court that his
    client no longer wished Mr. Pellicane to represent him. It was decided on the record
    that Mr. Pellicane would continue to represent plaintiff for the pendency of the
    instant motion.
    The appellant's correspondence with the district court confirms the district

    The appellant's correspondence with the district court confirms the district
    court's statement. In a letter dated May 31, 1996 and filed with the district
    court, appellant wrote:

    9 our conference in your courtroom on May 31, 1996, as I understand it, Mr.
    Per
    Pellicane will only represent me for the purpose of the pending summary judgment
    motion, and then will be relieved as my counsel.
    10

    In addition, in a letter dated June 12, 1996 appellant wrote to Judge Platt:

    11 the last hearing on May 31, 1996 it is my understanding that my current attorney,
    At
    Robert Pellicane will only be serving me at my Summary Judgment Hearing and
    then will be release[d]. I would like to request the court in assisting me in finding an
    attorney who will take my case on a pro bono bas[is].
    12

    Appellant also requests that we direct the district court to grant him leave to
    amend his complaint. This argument is meritless. First, a motion to amend the
    complaint was never made in the district court. It is well settled that we
    generally do not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See
    Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976) (exceptions to general rule are
    left to discretion of appellate court); Rodick v. Schenectedy, 1 F.3d 1341, 1347
    (2d Cir.1993). Second, a plaintiff that raises a claim under the Rehabilitation
    Act bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. To satisfy the
    burden, the plaintiff must show that he is disabled within the meaning of the
    Act, that he has been denied a benefit for which he was qualified and that the
    benefit is part of a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
    The appellees have denied receiving federal funding and appellant makes no
    showing to the contrary.

    13

    We have considered all of appellant's contentions on this appeal and have found
    them to be without merit. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the
    district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

    The Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation

    You might also like