Colleen Walker v. Ca Employment Development ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLLEEN DENISE WALKER, No. 18-15962
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00071-JD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, California,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Colleen Denise Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing her employment action under Title VII and the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) alleging
discrimination and hostile work environment claims. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Walker’s action because Walker failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See 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)); Vasquez v. County of Los
Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of discrimination and
hostile work environment claims under Title VII); Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278
F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of a discrimination claim under USERRA).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15962