Henderson v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

MEMORANDUM **

Glenn Henderson appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action against his former employer and some of its employees alleging discrimination, retaliation, violations of the First Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s First Amendment claim because Henderson did not allege that defendants are state actors. See George v. Pacific-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s claim under 5 U.S.C, § 552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA because defendants are not “agencies” and therefore cannot be held liable under the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (a)(4)(B); 551(1).

The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s discrimination and retaliation claims because they concern events that occurred after Henderson was terminated from his employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2001); Nidds v.…