Case Name: John W. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 167 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 05-16040
Parties: John W. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
John W. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 17, 2006.
John W. Coleman, Alameda, CA, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John W. Coleman appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging that he was retaliated against in connection with his application to become an airport screener with the Transportation Security Administration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, ASW v. Oregon, 424 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Coleman's action because in his amended complaint, Coleman did not allege that he had engaged in a protected activity, and therefore failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (listing elements of prima facie case).
Coleman's remaining contentions are without merit.
Coleman's motion requesting that his case "be reviewed by the Pro Bono Program" is denied.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.