Michael Leon v. the Boeing Company
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael A. Leon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Title VTI and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Dismissal of Leon’s Title VTI retaliation claim was proper because Leon failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he engaged in any protected conduct under Title VII. See Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass’n Inc., 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth elements of a prima facie Title VII retaliation claim); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (describing protected activity under Title VII).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leon leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 818 F.3d 799, 803 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leon’s motions for disqualification because Leon failed to establish any ground for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (c), (d)(4); United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting…