JULIAN HOOD, JR. V. USPS, No. 16-56053 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIAN R. HOOD, JR., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56053 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01312-JAH-JLB v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Julian R. Hood, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action against the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th * 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). Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed as untimely Hood’s action because Hood failed to initiate contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory[.]”); see also Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with this 45 day requirement is “fatal to a federal employee’s discrimination claim”). We do not consider any claims that Hood did not raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Hood’s opposed “Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional Medical Exhibits” (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied. Hood’s request for reimbursement of costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.