693 Fed.Appx. 608 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-16305, Khenaisser v. Zinke

Docket Nº:16-16305
Citation:693 Fed.Appx. 608
Party Name:MAZEN G. KHENAISSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RYAN ZINKE [*], Defendant-Appellee
Attorney:Mazen G. Khenaisser, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Elk Grove, CA. For Sally Jewell, Benjamin B. Wagner, Defendants - Appellees: Chi Soo Kim, Attorney, USSAC - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA.
Judge Panel:Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 06, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 608

693 Fed.Appx. 608 (9th Cir. 2017)

MAZEN G. KHENAISSER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RYAN ZINKE [*], Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-16305

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 6, 2017

Submitted June 26, 2017 [***]

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01205-MCE-CKD.

Khenaisser v. Jewell, (E.D. Cal., Mar. 3, 2016)

Mazen G. Khenaisser, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Elk Grove, CA.

For Sally Jewell, Benjamin B. Wagner, Defendants - Appellees: Chi Soo Kim, Attorney, USSAC - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA.

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [**]

Mazen Khenaisser appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his

Page 609

employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser's unfair labor practice claims that Khenaisser previously raised before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (" FLRA" ) because the district court lacked jurisdiction over such claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) (FLRA final order must be challenged within sixty days " in the United States court of appeals in the circuit in which the person resides or transacts business or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" ).

The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser's defamation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity over defamation claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for libel, slander, misrepresentation, and deceit claims); Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (Federal Tort Claims Act " does not permit...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP