KRISTA DANDRIDGE-BARNETT V. BARNES AND NOBLE, INC., No. 15-55994 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTA DANDRIDGE-BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55994 D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02254-JLS-KK MEMORANDUM* BARNES AND NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Krista Dandridge-Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an incident at a Barnes and Nobles store. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Edwards v. Marin Park, * 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). Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. Because the records shows that Dandridge-Barnett stood on her complaint, the district court abused its discretion in converting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s claims into a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) sanction. See id. at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint). Nevertheless, dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s federal claims was proper because Dandridge-Barnett failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144-45 (2005) (setting forth elements of a § 1981 racial discrimination claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a cause of action is not provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 absent a valid claim for relief under § 1985). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dandridge-Barnett’s state law claims after 2 15-55994 dismissing her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). AFFIRMED. 3 15-55994

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.