Edward Win v. County of Santa Clara

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD WIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
LAURA SALAS,
Defendant.
No. 18-17253
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-00840-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUL 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17253
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”); Dominguez-
Curry 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 of 2 --