Pierce v. Meacham

Ninth Circuit

Pierce v. Meacham

10 F. App'x 599

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2001

DocketNo. 00-36042; D.C. No. CV-00-1314

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. App'x 599 (Pierce v. Meacham) 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

Pierce v. Meacham, 10 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Stephanie G. Pierce appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997). Because Pierce’s complaint raised claims identical to those she raised in district court No. CV-99-671, the district court properly found these claims precluded and dismissed the action without leave to amend. See id.; Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1988).

Pierce’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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Stephanie G. Pierce appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997). Because Pierce’s complaint raised claims identical to those she raised in district court No. CV-99-671, the district court properly found these claims precluded and dismissed the action without leave to amend. See id.; Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1988).

Pierce’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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. App'x 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-meacham-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack