Kolocotronis v. Benefis Healthcare

360 F. App'x 860

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Cyril Kolocotronis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Kolocotronis raised the same claims against defendants and their privies in a prior federal action that was dismissed as frivolous under section 1915. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (explaining that the dismissal of an in for-ma pauperis complaint as frivolous under section 1915 may have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis proceedings); see also Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987 (listing elements of res judicata).

AFFIRMGED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . The district court certified that Kolocotron-is’s appeal was not taken in good faith, thus revoking Kolocotronis’s in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). We grant in forma pauperis status.