Kenneth Sachs v. James Wees

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-16220
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH SACHS, No. 22-16220

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00655-SMB

v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES F. WEES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on the basis of claim preclusion.

* 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). Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sachs’s action as barred by the doctrine

of claim preclusion because Sachs raised identical claims in his prior state court

action, which involved the same parties and resulted in a final judgment on the

merits. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal court must

follow state’s preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment);

Peterson v. Newton, 307 P.3d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (setting forth

elements of claim preclusion under Arizona law); see also Migra v. Warren City

Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81-84 (1984) (preclusive effect applies to

state court judgments on § 1983 claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend

because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review

and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be

futile).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16220