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 IGUEL GAR C IA, AKA M igue l Ga rc ia R e b ollo, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HONEYW ELL INTER

NATIONAL, INC ., a De l aware c orporation; HONEYW ELL AER OSPAC E DE M EXIC O SA DE C V, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17353 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00840-FJM 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 Fre de ric k J. M artone , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M igue l Ga

rc ia , AKA M igue l Ga

rc ia R e bollo, a

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in his Title VII e m ploy m e nt a c t ion for wrongful term ination,



# FIL ED FEB 2 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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).ha

ra ssm e nt, re ta lia

t ion, disc rim ination, unla

w ful e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e s, a

nd e m otiona l distre ss. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo. W ood v . C ity of San Die

go , 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th C ir. 2012) (fa i lure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)); Le ong v . Potte r , 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C ir. 2003) (fa ilure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ga

rc i a ’ s c la im s for disc rim ination, ha ra ssm e nt, re ta lia

t ion, unla wful e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e s, a

nd wrongful te rm ination arising out of his June

9, 2009 te rm ination be c a use Garc ia fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s unde r Title VII in a prope r m anne r. Se e42 U.S.C . § 2000e -5(e )(1) (a

pe rson se e k ing re lie f unde r Title VII m ust filea c ha

rge with the sta te or loc a l EEOC a dm inistra tive a ge nc y within 300 da y s of the a lle ge d unla

wful e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ga

rc i a ’ s c la im s for disc rim ination, ha ra ssm e nt, re ta lia

t ion, a nd wrongful te rm inat ion a rising out of his M arc h 16, 2010 te rm ination be c a

use Ga rc ia fa ile d to a l le ge suffic ie nt fa c ts to show tha t he wa s subje c t to a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tions dueto a

prote c te d a c tivity or sta

tus unde r Title VII. S

e eVasque z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 642, 646 (9th C ir. 2003) (e le m e nts of hostile work e nvironm e nt, ha

ra ssm e nt, a

nd re ta lia tion c la im s unde r Title VII); Le ong , 347 F.3d a t 1124 (e l e m e nts of disc rim ination c la im unde r 2 1 2 - 1 7 3 5 3Title VII).

The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ga

rc i a ’ s c la im for inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss be c a u se the c onduc t a lle ge d in Ga rc ia ’ s c o m

pla int wa s ne ithe r e x tre m e nor outra ge ous. Se eC luff v . Farme rs Ins. Ex c h ., 460 P.2d 666, 668 (Ariz . 1969), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Godbe he rev . Phoe nix N e w spape rs, Inc ., 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz . 1989) (de fe nda nt’ s c onduc t m

ust be so outra ge ous a

nd e xtre m e “ a s to go be y ond a ll possible bounds of de c e nc y , a

nd to be re ga rde d a s atroc i ous a

nd utte rly intole ra b le in a c iviliz e d c om

m unity ” (c i tation and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ga rc ia le ave to am e nd be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eGardne r v . Martino , 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w and e xpla ining tha t

“ [a ] distric t

c o urt doe s not e rr in de ny ing le a v e to a m e nd whe re the am e ndm e nt would be futile ” ). W e re j e c t Ga rc ia ’ s c onte ntions re lating to judic ia l bia s a n d due proc e ss viola tions. AFFIRM E D .

3 1 2 - 1 7 3 5 3