Jehan Mir v. Frandzell, Robin, Bloom, Csato

Ninth Circuit

Jehan Mir v. Frandzell, Robin, Bloom, Csato

699 F. App'x 752

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2017

Docket16-56251

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 699 F. App'x 752 (Jehan Mir v. Frandzell, Robin, Bloom, Csato) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jehan Mir v. Frandzell, Robin, Bloom, Csato, 699 F. App'x 752 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jehan Zeb Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal based on res judicata). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mir’s federal claims on the basis of res judicata because these claims were raised or could have been raised in a prior federal action between the parties or those in privity with them that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (elements of res judicata).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mir leave to amend his complaint. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave where amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Mir’s contention that his case was improperly transferred to Judge Snyder following appel-lees’ filing a notice of related cases. See C.D. Cal. General Order No. 16-05.

The request of appellees Iungerich & Spackman, Paul Spackman, and Russell Iungerich for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in their answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a timely motion for fees and a timely bill of costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. Their request to modify the judgmént to declare Mir a vexatious litigant, also set forth in their answering brief, is denied.

Mir’s request for assignment of his case to a different appeal panel (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI