N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAW R A HM AN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C R YSTAL EQUATION; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35346 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00218-M JP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 16, 2016 ** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Shaw R a h m an a p p e a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his e m p loy m e nt a c tion a lle ging na

tiona l origin a

n d re ligious discrim ination a nd re ta lia tion c la im s unde r Title VII. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. P av oni v . C hry sle r Grp., LLC, 789 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED AUG 26 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2015). W e a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R a

h m an ’ s hostile work e nvironm e nt c la i m

be c a use R ahm an fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s subje c t to ha ra ssm e n t on the ba sis of his na tiona l origin or re ligion. Se e Vasque z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 642-43 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a hostilework e nvironm e nt c la im unde r Title VII). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R a

h m an ’ s na

tiona l origin a nd re ligious discrim ination c la im s be c a use R ahm a

n fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d ispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s subje c t to a n a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion on the ba s is of his re ligion or na tiona l origin. Se e Aragon v . Re public Silv e r State Disposal , 292 F.3d 654, 658 (9th C ir. 2002) (e le m e n t s of a prim a fa c ie disc rim ination c la im unde r Title VII). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R a

h m an ’ s re ta lia tion c la im be c a use R a hm an fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s e n g a ge d in a prote c te d a c t ivity

prior to be ing te rm inate d. Se e Ste g all v . C itade l Broad. C

o. , 350 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth e le m e nts of re ta lia

tion c la im unde r Title VII); se e also 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -3(a ) (de s c ribing wha

t c onstitute s prote c te d a c tivity unde r Title VII). 1 4 - 3 5 3 4 6 2The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d de fe nda

nt M uslin for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion be c a

use R a hm an fa ile d

to e sta blish tha t M uslin, a

n Illinois re s ide nt, ha d the re quire d m inim

um c onta c ts with W a shington suc h tha t the m a inte na

nc e of his suit there would not offe nd due proc e ss. S e e W ash. Shoe C o . v . A-Z Sporting Goods Inc . , 704 F.3d 668, 672 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth fa c tors to e va luate pe rsona l jurisdic tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng R ahm an’ s re c usa l m otion be c a

use R ahm an fa ile d to ide ntify any ba s is for re c usa l. Se e Lite k y v . Unite d State s , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (expla i ning tha t “ judic i a l rulings alone a lm ost ne ve r c onstitute

a va lid ba sis for a

bia s or pa

rtia lity m otion” ); Unite d

State s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th C i r. 2010) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w and ba se s for re c usa l). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng a s untim e ly R ahm an ’ s m otion to e xte nd disc ove ry . Se e J orge nse n v . C

assiday , 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th C i r. 2003) (“ The distric t c ourt is given broa d disc re tion in supervising the pre t ria l pha se of litiga

tion, a nd its de c isions re g arding the pre c lusive e ffe c t of a pre t ria l orde r . . . will not be

disturbe d unle ss the y

e vide nc e a

c le ar a buse of disc re tion.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd R ahm an’ s c onte ntions tha t 1 4 - 3 5 3 4 6 3de fe nda

n ts bre a c he d

the e m ploy m e nt c ontra c t a

nd tha t de fe nda nts viola te d the Thirte e nth Am e ndm e nt. W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d and a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). R ahm an’ s re que s ts for a

pa ne l of a spe c i fic c om

position, a prote c tive orde r, and a pe tition for writ of c e rtiora ri, se t forth in his ope

ning brie f, are de nie d. R ahm an’ s m otions, file d on August 28, 2015 a nd Nove m

be r 27, 2015, a

re de nie d a s unne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 5 3 4 6 4