Liqiang Wei v. University of California ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIQIANG WEI, No. 18-16146
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00230-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY, Department of Physics,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Liqiang Wei appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
employment action alleging discrimination claims under federal law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
*
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).
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wei’s action because Wei failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that an applicant outside of his protected status and
with similar qualifications received the positions for which he applied. See
Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847, 850 (9th Cir. 2004)
(setting forth prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII and explaining that
same legal principles apply under 42 U.S.C. § 1981); Cotton v. City of Alameda,
812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth prima facie case of age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act based on a failure
or refusal to hire); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Wei’s contentions regarding the district judge.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16146