WELTHA JONES-RANKINS V. CARDINAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, No. 12-15143 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 04 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WELTHA J. JONES-RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-15143 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01626-FJM v. MEMORANDUM * CARDINAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Weltha J. Jones-Rankins appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). de novo, Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, although Rankins established a prima facie case of retaliation based on circumstantial evidence, she failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its decision to transfer her out of the state was merely pretextual. See id. at 1108 (discussing elements and burdenshifting framework of Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims); Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) (employee must produce specific, substantial evidence of pretext in order to avoid summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation claims (citation omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rankins s motion for reconsideration because Rankins failed to establish grounds for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(g) (court should deny reconsideration absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence ); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). 2 12-15143 We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court s award of costs to defendant after Rankins filed this appeal because Rankins did not file an amended or a separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007). We decline to address Rankins s contention that the district court erred in granting attorney s fees to defendant because there is no record of such an award. Rankins s contentions regarding the district court s allegedly improper refusal to admit evidence that did not comply with the local rules, failure to consider defendant s intentional inflection of emotional distress, bias against her as a pro se litigant, and various other judicial improprieties in handling this case are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 12-15143
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.
