Camargo Juarez v. Walmart Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-2844
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR CAMARGO JUAREZ, No. 24-2844 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00326-ART-CLB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WALMART INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Victor Camargo Juarez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Prodanova v. H.C.

* 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). Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Juarez’s action because Juarez did not

file this action within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue letter from the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that he exhausted administrative remedies with respect to claims

that he did not raise in his EEOC charge. See Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd.

P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2007) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a

claimant to file a civil lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a right to sue notice

from the EEOC); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (Americans with Disabilities Act

incorporates Title VII procedures); O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111

(9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the filing of plaintiff’s first complaint did not toll

the 90-day limitations period and her second complaint asserting the same claims

was therefore untimely); B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099–1100

(9th Cir. 2002) (Title VII plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a

timely EEOC or state agency charge), abrogated on other grounds by Fort Bend

County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2844