Opinion
20-55621
09-23-2021
RHONDA NANETTE POLITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01518-JLS-DFM Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Rhonda Nanette Polite appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of Title VII and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Dismissal of Polite's Title VII claim was correct because Polite failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show she is entitled to relief if the complaint's factual allegations "do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct"); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) (elements of a Title VII failure-to-hire employment discrimination claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Polite's second amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to grant leave to amend); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) ("[T]he district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.