Erendira Rangel-Palacios v. Sweetwater Union High School District, a public entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERENDIRA RANGEL-PALACIOS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a public entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56258
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00872-AJB-BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Erendira Rangel-Palacios appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging Title VII claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
2010) (dismissal based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,
* 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).
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-56258
926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal based on the applicable statute of limitations). We
may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d
1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rangel-Palacios’s Title VII claim
concerning allegations in her 2015 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) charge as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and Rangel-
Palacios failed to allege facts sufficient to show that equitable tolling applies. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (Title VII complainant must file EEOC charge no later
than 180 days, or authorized state or local agency charge no later than 300 days,
after alleged unlawful practice occurred); Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242
(9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that equitable tolling is warranted “when extraordinary
circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control made it impossible to file a claim on
time”).
Dismissal of Rangel-Palacios’s Title VII claim concerning allegations in her
2013 EEOC charge was proper because Rangel-Palacios failed to file this action
within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter. See Payan v. Aramark Mgmt.
Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2007) (Title VII action must
be commenced within ninety days of issuance of the right to sue letter).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-56258
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --