N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HARR IS L. W INNS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postm a ste r Ge ne ra l,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-16842 D.C . No. 5:21-c v-04264-VKD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia Ka y De M arc hi, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 8, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s Harris W inns a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt in favor of Louis De J oy

in W inns’ s a c tion for disc rim ination a nd re ta l iation. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -16(c ). He a lso a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to



# F IL ED JAN 8 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).am e nd a

nd his m otion for te rm i nating sa nc tions. W e re vie w the sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, 1 and de nia l of le ave to a m e n d a nd sa n c tions for a

buse of disc re tion. 2 W e have jurisdic tion, 3 and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt on W inns’ s disc rim ination a

nd re ta l iation c l a im s. It c orre c tly c onstrue d W i nns’ s a c tion a s one for disc rim inat ion a

nd re ta lia tion ba se d on his 2015 te

rm i nation be c a

use , a s to the 2014 re m ova ls, W inns did not se e k e nforc e m e nt of the a dm inistra tive disposition
a s a whole or a

de novo de te rm ination of his c la im s. Se e C arv e r v . Holde r , 606 F.3d 690, 696–97 (9th C ir. 2010). Thedistric t c o urt a l so prope rly c onc lude d tha

t W inns fa ile d to e xha

ust his a d m inistra tive re m e die s a s to his 2015 c l a im pursua nt to 29 C .F.R . § 1614.105(a )(1). Se e Ly ons , 307 F.3d a t 1105. W inns’ s
a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l of the 2014 re m ova ls did not toll the tim e he ha d to initia te proc e e dings a s to the 2015 te rm ination be c a use the latte r wa s a

disc re te a c t. Se e 29 C .F.R . § 1614.302(b); Ly ons , 307 F.3d a t 1106–08. And his othe

r argum e n ts a s to

1 Se e Ly o n s v . England

, 307 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th C i r. 2002). 2 Se e C oote r & Ge ll v . Hartmarx C orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990) (re vie w of sa

nc tions de te rm ination unde r Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 11); Ebne r

v . Fre sh, Inc

. , 838 F.3d 958, 963 (9th C ir. 2016) (de nia l of le ave to a m e nd); Anhe use r-Busc h, Inc . v . N at. Be v e rageDistribs. , 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th C ir. 1995) (re vie w of sa

nc tions de te rm ination unde r c ourt’ s inhe re nt powe r). 3 Se e 28 U.S.C . §§ 636(c )(1), (3), 1291. 2 2
- 1 6 8 4 2 2a dm inistra

tive e xha ustion a re una va iling be c a

use in the a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings, hedid not c ha l le nge the dism issa l of his 2015 c la i m a s untim e ly
. Se e Ong v . C le land, 642 F.2d 316, 320 (9th C ir. 1981). Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing W i nns le ave to
am e nd his c om

pla int be c a

u s e am e ndm e nt would ha v e be e n futile
. Se e Ebne r , 838 F.3d at 968. Thec la im s he sought to a dd we re a lre a dy ple d or c o uld not be ple d be c a use the y e ffe c tive ly sta

t e d a n e m ploy m e n t disc rim ination c l a im a s to whic h 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -16(c ) wa s W inns’ s e xc lusive re m e dy
. Se e Brow n v . Ge n. Se r v s. Admin. , 425 U.S. 820, 829–35, 96 S. C t. 1961, 1966–69, 48 L. Ed. 2d 402 (1976); Broc k v . Unite d State s , 64 F.3d 1421, 1424 (9th C ir. 1995). Fina lly , de ny ing W inns’ s m otion for te rm inating sa n c tions wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. W inns m e re ly pointe d to possible

ina c c ura c ie s in the Alte rnative Dispute R e solution Spe c ia list R e port, but did not show tha t it wa s fa bric a te d or subm itte d in ba d fa i th. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 11(b); C o nn v . Borjorque

z , 967 F.2d 1418, 1420–21 (9th C ir. 1992); c f. Anhe use r-Busc h , 69 F.3d a t 348. W e de c line to c onside r m a tte rs not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly ra ise d a nd
argue d in the ope ning brie f, or a rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

2 2
- 1 6 8 4 2 3