FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK McDOWELL; DEBORAH No. 13-16274
McDOWELL,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03192-JSW
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank and Deborah McDowell appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of federal
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and state law arising out of their employment with the City and County of San
Francisco. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ § 1983 claims against
the City and County of San Francisco because the McDowells failed to allege facts
sufficient to state any plausible claim. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare,
666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012) (pleading requirements for a Monell liability
claim against a municipality); see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 715-16
(1987) (requirements of Fourth Amendment privacy violation claim).
The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ age discrimination
claim because the McDowells failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
discriminatory treatment claim or to identify a specific test, requirement, or
practice that had an adverse impact on older employees. See Smith v. City of
Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 241 (2005) (requirements of age discrimination claim).
The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ Fair Labor Standards
Act claim because the McDowells failed to allege any facts in support of their
claim. See Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir.
1997) (court may not supply essential elements of a claim that were not pled).
2 13-16274
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the McDowells’
motions for appointment of counsel because their underlying claims were
meritless. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir . 2009) (standard of
review and exceptional circumstances requirement); Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of
Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991) (relevant factors for appointment of
counsel in Title VII actions).
We do not consider the McDowells state law claims because they failed to
“present a specific, cogent argument for our consideration.” Greenwood v. FAA,
28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16274