22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43e,facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements of prima facie cases of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act); Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311, 313-14 (9th Cir. 1983) (no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC due to an adverse decision by the EEOC). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”). AFFIRMED. 2 20-5555724:T48b,

facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

(2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064

(9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements of prima facie cases of discrimination and

retaliation under Title VII); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th

Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation

Act); Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311, 313-14 (9th Cir. 1983) (no express or implied

cause of action against the EEOC due to an adverse decision by the EEOC).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of

Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend

when amendment would be futile”).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55557