NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAZEN G. KHENAISSER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
RYAN ZINKE * ,

Defendant

- Appellee

. No. 16

- 16305
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 01205

- MCE

CKD

MEMORANDUM **

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017 * * *
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mazen Khenaisser appeals pro se from the distri ct court’ s judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action

. We have juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.

* Ryan Zinke has been substituted for his predecessor, Sally Jewell , as Secretary of the Interior under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** * Th e panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16305

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010)

. W e affirm. The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser ’s unfair labor practice
claims that Khenaisser previously raised before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) because th e district court lacked jurisdiction over such claims.
See 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) (FLRA final order must be challenged within sixty days “in the United States court of appeals in the circuit in which the person resides or
transacts business or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia ”). The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser’s defamation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity over defamation claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for libel, slander, misrepresentation, and
deceit claims); Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal. , 347 F.3d 1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003 ) (Federal Tort Claims Act “ does not permit suits agai nst the United States for
defamation ”). The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser’s racial discrimination claim because Khenaisser failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.
See Ashcroft v. Iqba l , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“ A c laim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the3 16

- 16305

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged .”) ; Leong v. Potter , 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) ( setting forth th e required
elements for racial discrimination claim under Title VII). The district court properly dismissed Khenaisser’s disability related discrimination claims because Khenaisser failed to allege he had a disability as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. See Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv. , 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (a disability discrimination claim requires that a plaintiff
demonstrate that he “ is a person with a disability ” ; a n individual who has “ a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the [ individual ’ s ] major life act ivities ” qualifies as disabled)

. The district court properly d ismissed Khenaisser’s retaliation claim because Khenaisser failed to allege the required elements for such a claim. See Ray v.
Henderson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1240

- 45 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth the required elements for retaliation, including retaliation ba sed on hostile work environment, under Title VII). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).4 16

- 16305

Khenaisser’s pending motion s (Docket Entry No s . 22 and 23) are denied as

moot.
AFFIRMED.