Jenkins v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, 112012 FED9, 11-35619

Docket Nº:11-35619
Party Name:RONNIE L. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 20, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

RONNIE L. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-35619

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 20, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted November 13, 2012[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:11-cv-00779-RSL for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Ronnie L. Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim and on the basis of the doctrine res judicata. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to state a claim); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (res judicata). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jenkins's action with respect to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") because Jenkins failed to allege any claim against the EEOC. See Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1072. Nor could Jenkins allege a cognizable Title VII claim against the EEOC based on his dissatisfaction with the processing of his claim. See Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.3d 311, 313-14 (9th Cir. 1983) (employee who is dissatisfied with the EEOC's processing of his claim cannot sue EEOC under Title VII).

The district court properly dismissed Jenkins's action with respect to the remaining defendants...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP