John Houhoulas v. Cal. Dep't of Transp. Human Res.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HOUHOULAS, No. 23-15546

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00413-TLN-DB v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM* TRANSPORTATION HUMAN RESOURCES, "CalTrans HR"; SZANDRA KESZTHEYLI, Asst. Division Chief, CalTrans HR; MAGGIE FALCONER, Office Chief CalTrans HR; KRISTEN RASMUSSEN, Asst. Governmental Program Analyst CalTrans HR; CHARLENE ANDERSON, Central Region Budget and Hiring Manager, CalTrans HR; GRACE SWANSON, Classification and Hiring Analyst CalTrans HR; CYNTHIA BENJAMIN, Classification and Hiring Analyst CalTrans HR; STEPHANIE HUYNH, Classification and Hiring Analyst CalTrans HR; CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, "CSPB"; JENNIFER MALY, Assoc. Personnel Analyst CSPB,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 4, 2026**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff John Houhoulas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 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). Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Title VII discrimination claims,

which were alleged only against individual defendants in their personal capacities.

See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993) (individual

employees are not “employers” subject to liability under Title VII). Plaintiff’s

argument that the employees could be sued individually as agents of the employer

was rejected in Miller. Id. Amendment would be futile because plaintiff has

consistently argued that he is not suing the state employer. Nor did plaintiff allege

any facts to establish that the State Personnel Board, which merely heard his

employment appeal, was an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII. See 42

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (defining “employer”).

The district court properly dismissed the remaining state law claims as

barred by the California Government Claims Act because the factual allegations of

the complaint alleged that the individual defendants were acting in the scope of

their public employment and plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the act. See

Briggs v. Lawrence, 281 Cal. Rptr. 578, 582-83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (explaining

that the court looks to the facts pleaded in the complaint to determine whether it

alleges that the public employees committed acts or omissions in the scope of their

employment and requiring dismissal where the plaintiff failed to allege that he

filed a notice of claim with the public employer).

We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and

argued in the opening brief or raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.