NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 23 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



 KRISTA DANDRIDGE-BARNETT,                        No. 15-55994

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02254-JLS-KK

   v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
 BARNES AND NOBLE, INC.,

                  Defendant-Appellee.

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

                          Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before:       LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

        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,

        *
             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).
Inc., 

, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      Because the records shows that Dandridge-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

(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, 

, 678 (2009); see also Lindsey v. SLT

Los Angeles, LLC, 

, 1144-45 (2005) (setting forth elements of a

§ 1981 racial discrimination claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 

,

1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim);

Trerice v. Pedersen, 

, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a cause of 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




                                           2                                     15-55994
dismissing her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); San Pedro Hotel Co.,

Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 

, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).

       AFFIRMED.




                                         3                                   15-55994