NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROL THOMAS, No. 17-15766
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-05504-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Carol Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging race discrimination under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838
*
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).
F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s Title VI discrimination claim
because Thomas failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the defendant
discriminated against Thomas on the basis of her race. See Fobbs v. Holy Cross
Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth pleading
requirements for stating a Title VI discrimination claim), overruled on other
grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.
2001) (en banc); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s § 1981 claim because the
defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Mitchell v.
Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201-02 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining
that “under the eleventh amendment, agencies of the state are immune from private
damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court”).
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15766