Case Name: Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-20
Citations: 510 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 11-56206
Parties: Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 510
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-56206.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 20, 2013.
Francois Tabi, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Dennis J. Walsh, Walsh & Associates, APC, Encino, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francois Tabi appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his ac tion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 2000d alleging constitutional violations and racial discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to comply with local rules, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Tabi failed to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 ("The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."); see also Ghazali 46 F.3d at 54 (pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).
To the extent that Tabi argues that the district court should have allowed him to file an amended complaint and retain defendant in the lawsuit in order to allow him to conduct discovery regarding unknown and unnamed defendants, this argument has been waived because Tabi failed sufficiently to raise it before the district court. See In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.