Williamson-Bess v. United States Postal Service

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEBORAH WILLIAMSON-BESS, No. 24-5746 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02899-VBF-SHK Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; DAVID P. STEINER, Postmaster General; MARK STARKS; EVETT KING; JOHNSON, Employee; DUMAS, Employee; AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION; WALKER, Plant Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 12, 2025**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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).

Deborah Williamson-Bess appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging claims under Title VII. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or

§ 1915A. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v.

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williamson-Bess’s action because

Williamson-Bess did not file her complaint within 90 days of receiving a right-to-

sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See

Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2007)

(explaining that 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5746