O'Neill

MEMORANDUM ****

Plaintiff Scott Williams appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his complaint alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking allegations in the Amended Complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking several paragraphs in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff conceded that he was not permitted to bring the claims supported by the stricken allegations.

II. Whether the district court correctly concluded that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A. Discrimination Claim

To state a claim for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and, therefore, under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must allege that he “(1) is disabled; (2) is qualified; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of [his] disability.” Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 201 , - L.Ed.2d - (2001).

The district court held that the complaint does not allege…