Zainab Mohammed v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZAINAB MOHAMMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Army,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16993
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-03481-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted December 8, 2022 ***
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Zainab Mohammed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her Title VII employment action alleging retaliation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ariz. All. for Cmty.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16993
Health Ctrs. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 47 F.4th 992, 998 (9th
Cir. 2022) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966
F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) (legal rulings on issue preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mohammed’s Title VII retaliation
claim on the basis of issue preclusion because whether the Army retaliated against
Mohammed was actually litigated and decided in Mohammed v. Department of the
Army, 780 F. App’x 870 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See Beauchamp v. Anaheim Union High
Sch. Dist., 816 F.3d 1216, 1225 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements of issue preclusion).
Contrary to Mohammed’s contention, the district court properly concluded that the
Army was not equitably estopped from raising issue preclusion because the Army
did not intend its conduct to induce reliance. See Est. of Amaro v. City of Oakland,
653 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of equitable estoppel).
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).
Nor do we consider documents not presented to the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --