Lorena Meyer v. Dolly Matteneucci

MEMORANDUM

Lorena Meyer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Meyer’s action because Meyer failed to allege facts sufficient to support one or more elements of her claims. See id. at 841-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as true); see also, e.g., Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 716 (9th Cir.2011) (elements of due process claim); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of equal protection claim); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487 (9th Cir.1995) (elements of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim); Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587…