Opinion
21-16993
12-15-2022
ZAINAB MOHAMMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:21-cv-03481-NC, Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Zainab Mohammed appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her Title VII employment action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ariz. All. for Cmty. Health Ctrs. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 47 F.4th 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2022) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Clark v. Bear Stearns &Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) (legal rulings on issue preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mohammed's Title VII retaliation claim on the basis of issue preclusion because whether the Army retaliated against Mohammed was actually litigated and decided in Mohammed v. Department of the Army, 780 Fed.Appx. 870 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See Beauchamp v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 816 F.3d 1216, 1225 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements of issue preclusion). Contrary to Mohammed's contention, the district court properly concluded that the Army was not equitably estopped from raising issue preclusion because the Army did not intend its conduct to induce reliance. See Est. of Amaro v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of equitable estoppel).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor do we consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).