Gholamreza Malekpour v. Environmental Protection Agenc

MEMORANDUM

Gholamreza Malekpour appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his participation in the Senior Environmental Employment program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir.2004) (summary judgment); Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.2001) (a district court’s decision regarding a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Malekpour’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) because Ma-lekpour failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a) (requiring that a fed eral agency first deny an administrative claim in writing or fail to make a final disposition of the claim within six months after it is filed); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000) (the filing of an administrative claim before filing an action under the FTCA is jurisdictional).

The district court properly dismissed Malekpour’s Title VII claim because…