Williams v. UAL, Inc., 123113 FED9, 13-15299
|Party Name:||ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 31, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 17, 2013 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:12-cv-03781-YGR
Anthony L. Williams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action arising from his termination and his prior legal challenges to his termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams's claims against various federal circuit and district judges and the clerk of the court on the basis of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (judges are absolutely immune for their judicial acts); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages . . . when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.").
The district court properly dismissed Williams's claims against UAL, Inc. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers defendants as time-barred. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D) (setting forth 180-day statute of limitation under Sarbanes-Oxley Act); Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156 (1987) (establishing four-year statute of limitations under civil Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act); Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 903 F.2d 624, 633 (9th Cir. 1990) (six-month statute of limitations applies to fair representation claims under the Railway Labor Act).
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Williams's claims against the Department of Labor ("DOL") defendants because Williams alleged that the DOL improperly denied his complaint under the Whistleblower Protection Provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP