Raimi Shoaga v. Andrew Nelson , III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 24, 2024
• Docket: 23-16002
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAIMI SHOAGA, No. 23-16002

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01953-DAD-CKD

v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW NELSON III; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Raimi Shoaga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his Title VII action alleging employment discrimination. We have jurisdiction

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

* 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). R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shoaga’s action because Shoaga failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that he exhausted administrative remedies. See

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, and allegations not included in an EEOC charge “may not be

considered by a federal court unless the new claims are like or reasonably related

to the allegations contained in the EEOC charge” (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Fort Bend County, Texas v.

Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-16002