Case Name: Edgar MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, District Governing Board, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 36 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 01-56544; D.C. No. CV-00-12167-ABC
Parties: Edgar MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, District Governing Board, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 912–913

Head Matter:
Edgar MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, District Governing Board, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-56544.
D.C. No. CV-00-12167-ABC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002.
Decided May 29, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edgar Mosley appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action against his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per cu-riam). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mosley's claim that defendant's assistant vice principal selection process was discriminatory because Mosley failed to allege facts demonstrating that the selection process had a discriminatory impact on African-Americans. See Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1427-30 (9th Cir.1985) (explaining disparate impact analysis).
The district court properly dismissed Mosley's claim that a process for selecting out-of-classroom positions was discriminatory because Mosley failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994).
The district court acted within its discretion by denying Mosley's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. See New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir.1989).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.