Hood v. United States Postal Service
Julian R. HOOD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- John A. Houston (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gould (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIAN R. HOOD, JR., No. 16-56053 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01312-JAH-JLB v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Julian R. Hood, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action against the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th * 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). Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as untimely Hood’s action because Hood failed to initiate contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”)
Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory[.]”); see also Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with this 45 day requirement is “fatal to a federal employee’s discrimination claim”).
We do not consider any claims that Hood did not raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hood’s opposed “Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional Medical Exhibits” (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
Hood’s request for reimbursement of costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.