Redale Benton-Flores v. Santa Barbara Unified School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REDALE BENTON-FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
MICHELLE ROBINSON, Program
Administrator, individual and official
capacity; ELSIE GERMAN, Former Gen
Education Teacher, individual and official
capacity; ERIN CAVAZOS, Preschool
Teacher, individual and official capacity;
MONICA HURTADO, Teacher's Aide,
individual and official capacity; ANN M.
PEAK, Personnel Coordinator,
Defendants.
No. 22-56213
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-06424-JFW-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-56213
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
ReDale Benton-Flores appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.
2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Benton-Flores’s claims of hostile work
environment, discrimination, and retaliation because Benton-Flores failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d
634, 640-46 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case for Title
VII discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Benton-Flores’s
motion to compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court’s
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-56213
discovery rulings “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that
denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining
litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Benton-Flores’s request to change the name of a party (Docket Entry No.
14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --