Fanaka

MEMORANDUM **

Jamaa Fanaka appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging employment retaliation under Title VII, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , constitutional violations, and state law torts against the Directors Guild of America, Inc. (“DGA”) and several individual defendants associated with the DGA 1 (the “DGA Defendants”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after de novo review, Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 231 F.3d 520, 527 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.

Fanaka’s allegation of employment retaliation fails because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. See Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707-08 (9th Cir.2001). Fanaka’s claim that the DGA Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails because he did not specify what contract the defendants allegedly interfered with his making or enforcing. Cf. Imagineering v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303 , 1313 (9th Cir.1992). Because the DGA Defendants are not state actors, they cannot be held liable for violating Fanaka’s constitutional rights. See Howard v. America Online, 208 F.3d 741, 754 (9th Cir.2000). The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental…