Munoz v. Central Telephone Co.

Ninth Circuit

Munoz v. Central Telephone Co.

175 F. App'x 803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 2006

DocketNo. 05-15295

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. App'x 803 (Munoz v. Central Telephone Co.) 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

Munoz v. Central Telephone Co., 175 F. App'x 803 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Eddie Paul Munoz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Central Telephone Company—Nevada (“Sprint”) failed to maintain a secure telephone network, resulting in the loss of some calls to his business. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment based upon res judicata. See Headwaters Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded this action is barred by res judicata because Munoz raised, or could have raised, these claims in prior administrative proceedings against Sprint before the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001); Britton v. City of North Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 690, 799 P.2d 568, 569 (1990) (per curiam) (res judicata applies to administrative proceedings in Nevada); see also UOP v. United States, 99 F.3d 344, 347 (9th Cir.1996) (doctrine of administrative finality bars challenges to administrative decisions after the time for making a challenge has expired).

Munoz’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Eddie Paul Munoz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Central Telephone Company—Nevada (“Sprint”) failed to maintain a secure telephone network, resulting in the loss of some calls to his business. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment based upon res judicata. See Headwaters Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded this action is barred by res judicata because Munoz raised, or could have raised, these claims in prior administrative proceedings against Sprint before the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001); Britton v. City of North Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 690, 799 P.2d 568, 569 (1990) (per curiam) (res judicata applies to administrative proceedings in Nevada); see also UOP v. United States, 99 F.3d 344, 347 (9th Cir.1996) (doctrine of administrative finality bars challenges to administrative decisions after the time for making a challenge has expired).

Munoz’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. App'x 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-central-telephone-co-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack