N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W INONA W E ATHER S,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M . HAGEM EISTER -M A Y; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17492 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-01932-AW IM JS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, 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. W inona W e athe rs, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing he r a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l an d sta te la w c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismi ssa l for fa ilure to sta te a 

# 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).c la im

unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism i ssa l for fa ilure to sta te a c l a im unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W e at

he rs’ Am e ric a

n s with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (“ ADA” ) c la i m

be c a use W e athe rs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t he r foot proble m s qua lify a s a disa bility unde r the ADA. Se e42 U.S.C . § 12102(1) (de fining “ disa

b ility ” unde r the ADA); W e av ing v . C

ity of Hillsboro , 763 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th C ir. 2014) (a disa bility is a phy sic a l or m e nta l im

pa irm e nt tha

t substa ntia lly lim i ts one or m ore m a

jor life a c tivitie s). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W e at

he rs’ e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a use , e ve n a ssum ing she ha d a disa bility , W e athe rs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha

t he r e xc lusion from

the fa bric fa c ility

wa s not ra

t iona lly
re late d to a

le gitim ate sta

te obje c tive
. Se eLe ev . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 686-87 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ [T] he disa ble d do not c onstitute

a suspe c t c la ss for
e qua l prote c tion purpose s.” ); C oak le y v . Murphy , 884 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ Whe n a

sta te polic y doe s not a dve rse l y a ffe c t a suspe c t c la ss or im

pinge upon a funda m e nta l right, a ll tha

t is c onstitutiona

lly re quire d of the sta

te ’ s progra

m is tha t it berationa lly

re late d to a

le gitim ate sta

te obje c tive .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W e at

he rs’ re ta lia

tion c la im be c a use

1 5
- 1 7 4 9 2 2W e athe rs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t a ny de fe nda

nt pa rtic ipate d in the a lle ge d a c t of re ta lia

t ion or tha

t the a l le ge dly a dve rse a c tion wa s ta ke n be c a use she e nga g e d in prote c te d c onduc t. Se eRhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (e le m e nts of a re ta lia t ion c la im in the prison c onte xt); J

one s v . W illiams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ In orde r for a pe rson a c ting unde r c olor of sta

te la w to be lia

b l e unde r se c tion 1983 there m u s t be a showing of pe rsona l pa

rtic ipation in the

a lle ge d rights depriva

tion....” ) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W e at

he rs’ Title VII c la im be c a use W e athe rs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts disc rim inate d
a ga inst he r on the ba s is of he r “ ra c e , c olor , re ligion, se x, or na tiona l origin.” 42 U.S.C
. § 2000e
- 2 ; se ealso Dav is v
. Te am Ele c . C o . , 520 F.3d 1080, 1093 n. 8 (9th C ir. 2008) ( “ Title VII doe s not e nc om pa s s disc rim ination on the ba sis of disa bility .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W e at

he rs’ Fa ir La

bor Sta nda rds Ac t (“ FLSA” ) c la im

be c a use W e athe rs is not a

n e m ploy e e for purpose s of the FLSA. Se e B urle son v . C alifornia , 83 F.3d 311, 313-14 (9th C i r. 1996) (C a lifornia inm ate s e m

ploy e d by the Prison Industry

Authority

are not e m

ploy e e s for purpose s of Fa ir La bor Sta nda rds Ac t ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nt B e a rd

1 5
- 1 7 4 9 2 3be c a

use W e athe rs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t B e ard pa

rtic ipate d in or dire c te d a

ny c onstitutiona

l viola tion or kne w of a

ny viola tion a nd fa ile d to a c t to pre v e nt it. Se eTay lor v . List , 880 F.2d 1040 (1045) (9th C i r. 1989)
. (re quire m e nts for e s ta blishing supe

rvisory lia bility). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the W e at he rs’ sta te la w c la i m s be c a

use W e athe rs fa ile d to sta

te a fe d e ra l c la i m . Se e Ov ev . Gw inn , 264 F.3d 817, 821, 826 (9th C ir. 2001) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w; “ [a ] c ourt m ay de c line to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r re late d sta te -la w c la im s onc e it ha s dism isse d a ll
c la im s ove r whic h it ha s origina l jurisdic tion” (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d)). W e athe rs’ re que st to subm it ne w e vide nc e , file d on June27, 2016, is denie d be c a use m ate ria l s “ not file d with thedistric t c ourt or a dm itte d into e vide nc e by tha t
c ourt a re not pa rt of the c le rk’ s re c ord a

nd c annot be pa

rt of the re c o rd on a

ppe a l.” K irshne r v . Unide n C

orp. of Am. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 1988). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 7 4 9 2 4