Mariyam Akmal v. Centerstance Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Mariyam Akmal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her employment action alleging 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). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055 , 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly dismissed the racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims because Akmal failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the alleged conduct was due to her race or because she engaged in a protected activity. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir.2008) (elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 hostile work environment claim); Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir.2008) (elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claim); Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840,…