Unpublished Disposition, 902 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 902 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1990)

Bernard Joseph CASSIDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS, et al.; Evans, Cumming and Malter;Andrew W. Barclay, Esq.; Russell Morton; A.R.Patterson; Industrial Indemnity; Stateof California; MontgomeryWard, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-6646.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1990.* Decided April 30, 1990.

Before EUGENE A WRIGHT, FARRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Bernard Joseph Cassidy, pro se, appeals the dismissal, without leave to amend, of his second amended complaint against the defendants listed above. We affirm.

Cassidy suffered a painful back injury in 1967 while working for Montgomery Ward & Co. Since that date he has had physical problems and has sought redress in a variety of ways culminating in this lawsuit brought, as he puts it, "for violations, United States of America Constitutional rights, civil rights and liberty." Unfortunately for him, none of the claims presented in this case survive scrutiny. He cannot sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because he has not alleged that the defendants were motivated by racial or class discrimination. His claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by the applicable California statute of limitations. He cannot sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he did not make a timely filing of his charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. His Fair Labor Standards Act claim fails because he does not allege discharge or discrimination by Ward's. His claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act fails because he has not sued the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1) (A). He cannot recover under the Medical Care Recovery Act because only the United States may be sued under that act, 42 U.S.C. § 2651. He has no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo because he is not a Medicare provider. Mandamus jurisdiction is not available because none of the named defendants are federal officers, employees or agencies, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Because he has failed to state a federal claim, pendent jurisdiction does not exist over his state constitutional and common law claims. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 F.2d 715, 725.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3