MEMORANDUM **

Krista Dandridge-Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an incident at a Barnes and Nobles store. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Because the records shows that Dan-dridge-Barnett stood on her complaint, the district court abused its discretion in converting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s claims into a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) sanction. See id. at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).

Nevertheless, dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s federal claims was proper because Dandridge-Barnett failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144-45 (2006) (setting forth elements of a § 1981 racial discrimination claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a cause of *453 action is not provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 absent a valid claim for relief under § 1985).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dandridge-Barnett’s state law claims after dismissing her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8); San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).

AFFIRMED.