Wynn
Wynn v. Clark County Board of Commissioners
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Isaac C. Wynn appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his action alleging, among other things, employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . *809 We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim. Ortez v. Washington County, State of Oregon, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly concluded that Wynn’s Title VII claim was untimely because he did not file his complaint within ninety days of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) giving notice to him of his right to sue his former employer. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1992). Contrary to Wynn’s contention, he could not evade dismissal by purposefully omitting the date of the right-to-sue letter from his complaint or by failing to attach a copy of the letter to the complaint. See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a plaintiff may not “surviv[e] a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which [its] claims are…