NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTA DANDRIDGE-BARNETT, No. 15-55994
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02254-JLS-KK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BARNES AND NOBLE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Krista Dandridge-Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute her action alleging federal and state law claims
arising from an incident at a Barnes and Nobles store. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Edwards v. Marin Park,
*
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).
Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Because the records shows that Dandridge-Barnett stood on her complaint,
the district court abused its discretion in converting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s claims into a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) sanction. See
id. at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff
makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).
Nevertheless, dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s federal claims was proper
because Dandridge-Barnett failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible
claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Lindsey v. SLT
Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144-45 (2005) (setting forth elements of a
§ 1981 racial discrimination claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529,
1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim);
Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a cause of action is not
provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 absent a valid claim for relief under § 1985).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Dandridge-Barnett’s state law claims after
2 15-55994
dismissing her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); San Pedro Hotel Co.,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-55994