NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMILAH TALIBAH ABDUL-HAQQ, No. 15-15747
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-04140-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jamilah Talibah Abdul-Haqq appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her employment action alleging violations of Title VII, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and California law. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.
2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Abdul-Haqq’s Title VII, ADA, and Fair Employment and
Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims was proper because Abdul-Haqq failed to exhaust
her administrative remedies as to those claims. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified
Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth factors exhaustion
requirement for Title VII claims); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (extending Title
VII exhaustion requirement to ADA); Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d
890, 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (FEHA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies).
The district court properly dismissed Abdul-Haqq’s intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim because Abdul-Haqq failed to allege facts sufficient to
state a plausible claim. See Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009)
(elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 15-15747
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ motion to strike documents attached to Abdul-Haqq’s opening
and reply briefs is granted because the documents were not part of the record
before the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); 9th Cir. R. 10-2; see also
Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants’ motion to
strike Abdul-Haqq’s opening brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15747