WIN v. Laura Salas, Defendant. (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Win appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action arising out of defendants’ failure to hire. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Gibson v. Office of Att’y. Gen., State of Cal., 561 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Win’s action because Win failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he was a member of a protected class and that defendants failed to hire him based on his membership in a protected class. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he or she is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual allegations do not “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the alleged] misconduct”); Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a Title VII employment discrimination claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Win’s contentions that defendants improperly influenced the district court and that the district court was biased are unpersuasive.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.