Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lozada v. Watsonville Municipal Court

*fn* submitted: July 6, 1993.

JUAN JOSE LOZADA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL COURT; SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PERSONNEL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-92-20524-JW. James Ware, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Tang, Poole, and Norris, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Juan Jose Lozada appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his employment discrimination action arising from defendants' decision not to hire Lozada for the position of municipal court clerk. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Felton v. Unisource Corp., 940 F.2d 503, 508 (9th Cir. 1991); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 640 (1991), and affirm.

The district court correctly held that Lozada's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was barred by California's one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3); Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660-62 (1987). The district court also correctly held that Lozada's claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to that claim. See Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(b); Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1230. Finally, the district court correctly dismissed Lozada's Title VII claim because Lozada failed to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission first. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Stache v. International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, 852 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 815 (1989).

Lozada's contention that he was entitled to an extra 300 days to file his action lacks merit. The 300-day period to which Lozada refers applies to the filing of complaints with the EEOC, see Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1218-19, and is irrelevant to whether Lozada timely filed his complaint in district court. In addition, there is no basis for Lozada's contention that a claim filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing should be deemed also filed with the EEOC.

AFFIRMED.

Disposition

AFFIRME ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.