Ronnie L. Jenkins v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument, and therefore, denies Jenkins’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNIE L. JENKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35619
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00779-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ronnie L. Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his employment action alleging race discrimination in violation of 42
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35619 2
U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
the dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim and on the basis of the
doctrine res judicata. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)
(failure to state a claim); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.
2002) (res judicata). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’s action with respect to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) because Jenkins failed to
allege any claim against the EEOC. See Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1072. Nor could
Jenkins allege a cognizable Title VII claim against the EEOC based on his
dissatisfaction with the processing of his claim. See Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.3d 311,
313-14 (9th Cir. 1983) (employee who is dissatisfied with the EEOC’s processing
of his claim cannot sue EEOC under Title VII).
The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’s action with respect to the
remaining defendants because Jenkins raised, or could have raised, the same claims
against these defendants or their privies in two prior lawsuits that were decided on
the merits. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (elements of the doctrine of res judicata).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --