
    Krista DANDRIDGE-BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARNES AND NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-55994
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Krista Dandridge-Barnett, Pro Se, Tem-ecula, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Dana Michele Ulise, Clinton & Clinton, Long Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     