Christerphor Ziglar v. Parc Dispensary ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTERPHOR ZIGLAR, No. 20-15746
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04896-DLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PARC DISPENSARY,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JEFF SCHEAFFER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christerphor Ziglar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing his action alleging retaliation under Title VII. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Dougherty v. City of Covina,
654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial
of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,
1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We vacate and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Ziglar’s Title VII claim for failure to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief).
However, dismissal of Ziglar’s Title VII claim without leave to amend was
premature because it is not clear that any deficiencies could not be cured by
amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be
cured by amendment); see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.
2012) (before dismissing a pro se complaint, the district court must provide the
litigant notice of the deficiencies to allow the litigant an opportunity to amend
effectively). In the EEOC charge attached to the original complaint, Ziglar alleged
that he observed a workplace environment of race and sex discrimination, that he
reported it to human resources and management, and that he was terminated in
2 20-15746
retaliation for reporting it. See Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (9th
Cir. 2007) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim). Because the deficiencies in
Ziglar’s Title VII claim may be cured by amendment, we vacate the judgment and
remand for the district court to provide Ziglar with an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
Ziglar’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied as
unnecessary.
The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 20-15746