Carneice Hall-Johnson v. City & County of S.F.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARNEICE KATHRINE HALL- No. 19-15508 JOHNSON, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05553-MMC Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; MICKI CALLAHAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Carneice Kathrine Hall-Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her employment action alleging federal law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis

* 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). Hall-Johnson’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hall-Johnson’s action on the basis of

claim preclusion because Hall-Johnson raised, or could have raised, her claims in

her prior federal court action, which involved the same parties or their privies and

resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of federal

claim preclusion and explaining that an identity of claims exists between the first

and second adjudications when “the two suits arise out of the same transactional

nucleus of facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Tahoe-

Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078

(9th Cir. 2003) (“It is immaterial whether the claims asserted . . . [in the second

action] were actually pursued in the [first] action . . . ; rather, the relevant inquiry is

whether they could have been brought.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15508