amazon.com

MEMORANDUM

William J. Whitsitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir, 1998) (order). 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, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed all of Whitsitt’s claims other than his claims arising from a failure to hire because Whitsitt failed to allege plausible claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) based on termination); Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (9th Cir.…