NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DAVID JONES, No. 17-15805
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04374-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ronald David Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark
*
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).
Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims
because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (to state a claim
under § 1983 a plaintiff must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by
a person acting under color of state law); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830,
839-43 (1982) (a privately owned school is not a state actor for purposes of
§ 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s federal discrimination claims
because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship,
521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of a claim under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 124
F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth elements of a discrimination claim
under Title VII); Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996)
(setting forth elements of a discrimination claim under the American with
2 17-15805
Disabilities Act).
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s claim under the Florida Civil
Rights Act (“FCRA”) because Jones failed to file his complaint with the Florida
Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) prior to filing this action. See
Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 829 So.2d 891, 894 (Fla.
2002) (filing a complaint with the FCHR is a prerequisite to bringing a civil action
based upon an alleged violation of the FCRA).
We reject as unsupported by the record Jones’s contentions that service of
Grand Canyon University’s motion to dismiss was untimely and that defendants’
answering brief was untimely filed.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15805