923 F.2d 861
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Maya ADIEL, and, Does I-X, inclusive, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Paula OHLIGER, aka Dorothy Ruth and aka Carol Ohlinger, and,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Does I-X,
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 1991.*
Decided Jan. 25, 1991.
Before ALARCON, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Maya Adiel appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing her action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for failure to file an amended complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm.
The gravamen of Adiel's action is that Paula Ohliger, a defendant and former law school classmate, was involved in Adiel's academic disqualification from Golden Gate University Law School. Adiel alleges that Ohliger was an FBI undercover agent and that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance against her. In its motion to dismiss, the FBI submitted declarations that Ohliger was not, nor has she ever been, an FBI employee and that no FBI surveillance has been conducted against Adiel.
In its order dismissing Adiel's action, the district court granted Adiel thirty days to "amend her complaint to state a cause of action against the federal defendant." Adiel did not avail herself of this opportunity. Consequently, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing her action. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529-30 (9th Cir.1985); see also Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810, 813-14 (11th Cir.1985) (failure to amend complaint grounds for dismissal).