N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL A. LEON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. B OEING C OM PANY; e t a l ., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-17009 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-00226-DC B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l A. Le o n a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his ac tion a lle ging Title VII and sta

te la w c la i m s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dism i ssa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 

# FIL ED OCT 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we de ny Le on’ s re que s ts for ora l a

rgum e nt se t forth in his ope ning a nd re p l y brie fs.12(b)(6). Rhoade s v . Av on Prods. , Inc ., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th C i r. 2007). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of Le o n ’ s TitleVII re ta lia tion c la im wa s prope r be c a

u se Le on fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he e nga ge d in a

ny prote c te d c onduc t unde r Title VII. Se eTre nt v . Valle y Ele c . Ass’n Inc
. , 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th C ir. 1994) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a prim a fa c ie Title VII re t a lia

t ion c la im ); se ealso 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -3(a ) (de sc ribing prote c te d a c tivity unde r Title VII). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Le on le av e to am e nd be c a

use furthe r am e ndm e nt would befutile . S e e Ebne r v . Fre sh, Inc
. , 818 F.3d 799, 803 (9th C ir. 2016) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Le on’ s m otions for disqua lific ation be c a

u se Le o n fa ile d to e sta

blish a ny ground for re c usa l. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 455(c ), (d)(4); Unite d State s v . Mc Tie r

nan , 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd grounds for disqua

lific ation). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c la ring Le on a ve xatious litiga nt a n d im posing a pre -filing orde r a ga inst him be c a use it ga v e Le on notic e and a n opportunity

to be he a rd, de ve l ope d a

n a de quate re c ord for re vie w, m a de findings re ga

rding his frivolous litiga

tion history , a

nd ta ilore d the re stric tions in the p re -filing orde r narrowly . Se eMolsk i v . Ev e rgre e n Dy nasty

C o rp. , 500 F.3d

1 4 - 1 7 0 0 9 21047, 1056-61 (9th C ir. 2007) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd disc ussing fa c t ors to c onside r be fore im posing pre -filing re stric tions). Howe ve r, to the e xte nt that Le on wishe s to a

p ply for in form a

pa upe ris sta t us for a ny “ future filings in the Unite d State s Distric t

C o urt for the Distric t of Ariz ona ” or se e ks to filea c la im “ for re lie f unde r Title VII, the ADA, or the FC A” , we dire c t the distric t c ourt to a dd the following sente nc e to its order: If Le on wishe s to filean a c t ion a lle g ing c la im s unde r the Fa lse C la i m s Ac t, the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t, or TitleVII, or se e k s in form a

pa upe ris sta t us for future filings in this Distric t , Le on m a

y se e k pe rm ission from

the m a gistra

te judge . C ontra ry to Le on’ s c onte ntion, theNorthe rn Distric t of Illinois did not a

buse its disc re t ion in tra

nsfe rring Le on’ s a c tion to the Distric t of Ariz ona

be c a u se the e ve nts giving rise

to Le on’ s c l a im

oc c urre d in Ariz ona . Se eLou v . Be l zbe rg , 834 F.2d 730, 734, 739 (9th C ir. 1987) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining that “ [i] f the ope rative fa c ts ha v e not oc c urre d within the forum and the forum

ha s no inte re st in thepa

rtie s or subje c t m atte r, [a pla intiff’ s ] c hoic e is e ntitle d to only m inim a l c onside ration.” ). W e re je c t a s m e ritle ss Le on’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing him

pe rm ission to file

e le c tronic a lly . De fe nda nts’ re que st for judic ia l notic e of c ourt filings in othe r proc e e dings

1 4 - 1 7 0 0 9 3is de nie d a s unne c e ssa ry . W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 7 0 0 9 4