John Shek v. National Labor Relations Board, Region 32; California Nurses Association C.h.e.u.

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN SHEK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, REGION 32; CALIFORNIA
NURSES ASSOCIATION C.H.E.U.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16866
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00212-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
John Shek appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging the decision of the National
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16866 2
Labor Relations Board Regional Director to dismiss Shek’s unfair labor practice
charge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Amerco v. NLRB, 458 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shek’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the Regional Director’s decision to dismiss Shek’s unfair labor
practice charge is not properly subject to judicial review. See Int’l Ass’n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Lubbers, 681 F.2d 598, 602 (9th Cir. 1982)
(section 3(d) of the Labor Management Relations Act has been construed to
preclude review of the General Counsel’s initial charging decisions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shek’s requests for
leave to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See
Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard
of review and explaining that a district court does not abuse its discretion to deny
leave to amend where it “could reasonably conclude that further amendment would
be futile”).
Shek’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --