Rhonda Polite v. Kilolo Kijakazi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RHONDA NANETTE POLITE, No. 20-55621
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01518-JLS-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rhonda Nanette Polite appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
dismissing her action alleging a violation of Title VII and state law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640
F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
Dismissal of Polite’s Title VII claim was correct because Polite failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show she is entitled to relief if the complaint’s
factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct”); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)
(elements of a Title VII failure-to-hire employment discrimination claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Polite’s second
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
standard of review and factors for determining whether to grant leave to amend);
Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad
where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
2 20-55621
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55621