Unpublished Disposition, 923 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Manuel Aguon Quintanilla appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his Title VII action and pendent state claims with prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.¹ 

In his fourth amended complaint, Quintanilla alleged discriminatory constructive discharge under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and defamation. The record reflects that Quintanilla never filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He argues, however, that his failure to file should be excused because he was unaware of the existence of the EEOC.

Quintanilla's argument lacks merit. The pursuit of administrative remedies is a condition precedent to a Title VII claim. See Temengil v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, 881 F.2d 647, 654 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). While equitable conditions may excuse the failure to file an EEOC claim within the proper time period, a plaintiff's complete failure to file an EEOC complaint cannot be excused. Id. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Quintanilla's Title VII action.

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Quintanilla's state claims where it properly dismissed his only federal claim. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 1984) (when federal claims are dismissed before trial, pendant state claims also should be dismissed.)

AFFIRMED.