NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DERRICK SPEARS, No. 24-1428 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-05950-WLH-AGR v. MEMORANDUM* BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; VERONICA VALENZUELA; JEFF PALMER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Wesley L. Hsu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

* 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). Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Derrick Spears appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his employment action alleging discrimination claims under federal law. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s dismissal for

failure to comply with local rules for abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Spears’ action

because Spears failed to respond to Baldwin Park Adult School’s (“the School’s”)

Motion to Dismiss and filed a non-responsive and untimely Second Amended

Complaint. Spears’ failure to respond to the School’s Motion to Dismiss is

deemed his consent to the granting of the motion. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The

failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline,

may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion[.]”); see also

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54 (affirming lower court’s order granting an unopposed

motion to dismiss under local rule by a pro se litigant who failed to oppose the

motion); see also id (listing factors to be considered before dismissing an action for

failure to comply with a local rule). Even though the court must liberally construe

pleadings filed by pro se parties, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of

procedure.” Id. at 54.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1428