NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES CORNFIELD; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. MICHAEL THOMPSON, an individual acting under the color of law; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16968 D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 00924

- ROS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 201 9 ** Before: McKEOWN , BYBEE, and OWENS , Circuit Judges. Charles Cornfield, B enjamin R obert F lynn , B ernard L inser , W illiam J

. O’H ayer , and M atthew V

. P arker appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation and employment discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). 

# FILED

APR 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16968

review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and its dism issal on the basis of a statute of limitations

. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency , 847 F.3d 1075, 1084 n.7 (9th Cir. 2017). W e may affirm on any basis supported by the record , Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 200 8) , and w e affirm

. The district court properly dismissed the retaliation claims brought by Cornfield, Flynn, Linser, and Parker because these plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claim s . See O’Brien v. Welty , 818 F.3d 920, 932 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim); Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief)

. The district court properly dismissed O’Hayer’ s Rehabilitation Act claim as barred by the statute of limitations. See Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth. , 271 F.3d 812, 823 n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) ( for Rehabilitation Act claims , courts apply the statute of limitations for th e most analogous state law) ; Madden

– Tyler v. Maricopa County , 943 P.2d 822, 829 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) (Rehabilitation Act claims are subject to Arizona’s two

- year statute of limitations for personal injury actions)

. Contrary to O’Hayer’s contentions, the district court did not err in concluding that3 17

- 16968

t his claim , which was alleged for the first time in the Third Amended Complaint, did not relate back to the filing of any earlier complaint

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exerc ise supplemental jurisdiction over Parker’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn , 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (the district court may in its discretion “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related
state
- law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

. The dis trict court did not abuse its discretion by awarding a portion of defendants’ attorney’s fees as a sanction against plaintiffs after their counsel withdrew

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) & advisory comm ittee’s notes to 1993 Amendment (the court has significan t discretion in determining what sanctions, if any, to impose); Christian v. Mattel, Inc. , 286 F.3d 1118, 112 6

- 28 (9th Cir. 2002) ( setting forth standard of review and grounds for Rule 11 sanctions)

. We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contentions that san ctions were inappropriate because they did not have an opportunity to respond orally to defendants’ Rule 11 motion at an evidentiary hearing or trial , and that imposing sanctions on them was inappropriate because they were represented by counsel when the p leading was prepared and4 17

- 16968

filed

. T he district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding a portion of the
costs incurred by defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (4)

. See In re Online DVD

Rental Antitrust Litig. , 779 F.3d 914, 924

- 2 8 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether costs for making copies are recoverable ).
AFFIRM ED .