Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
16-56053•Julian R. Hood, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
16-56053Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24.04.2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIAN R. HOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56053
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01312-JAH-JLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Julian R. Hood, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his employment action against the United States Postal Service. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as untimely Hood’s action because
Hood failed to initiate contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”)
Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor
within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory[.]”); see
also Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with
this 45 day requirement is “fatal to a federal employee’s discrimination claim”).
We do not consider any claims that Hood did not raise before the district
court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hood’s opposed “Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of
Additional Medical Exhibits” (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
Hood’s request for reimbursement of costs, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.