EDWARD WIN V. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, No. 18-17253 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD WIN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-17253 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-00840-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant-Appellee, and LAURA SALAS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Edward Win appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his * 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). employment discrimination action arising out of defendants’ failure to hire. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Gibson v. Office of Att’y. Gen., State of Cal., 561 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Win’s action because Win failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he was a member of a protected class and that defendants failed to hire him based on his membership in a protected class. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he or she is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual allegations do not “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the alleged] misconduct”); DominguezCurry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a Title VII employment discrimination claim). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Win’s contentions that defendants improperly influenced the district court and that the district court was biased are unpersuasive. All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-17253

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.