John Cobb v. Jose Juarez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN COBB, No. 13-55394
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01872-CAB-
WMC
v.
JOSE JUAREZ, ID 602; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
JOHN COBB, No. 13-55478
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01872-CAB-
WMC
v.
JOSE JUAREZ, ID 602; J. COX, ID 652,
Defendants - Appellants,
And
JEFF REYES, ID 606; et al.,
Defendants.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
John Cobb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a traffic
stop on a college campus, and defendants Juarez and Cox cross-appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S.
Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal on the basis of the doctrine
of res judicata). We may affirm on an ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Cobb’s action as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata was
proper as to all defendants because Cobb alleged nearly identical claims arising out
of the same traffic stop and resulting search against these defendants, or parties
with whom they are in privity, in a prior action in which there was a final judgment
on the merits. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956-57 (setting forth elements of the
doctrine of res judicata as a bar to re-litigation of claims that were raised and that
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and denies Cobb’s request for oral argument, set forth in his
opening brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 13-55394
could have been raised in the prior action, and noting that, all dismissals other than
those for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or improper joinder operate as an
adjudication on the merits for purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata);
United States v. Schimmels (In re Schimmels), 127 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 1997)
(privity exists for purposes of the doctrine of res judicata where the interests of a
non-party were represented adequately by a party in the original suit); Scott v.
Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (privity exists
between employees of the same agency even though some were only named in the
later action). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Cobb leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See McQuillion
v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because we affirm dismissal of Cobb’s actions against all defendants on the
basis of the doctrine of res judicata, we do not consider the parties’ arguments
regarding the sufficiency of Cobb’s allegations against defendants Juarez and Cox.
We reject Cobb’s contentions regarding the allegedly erroneous denial of his
request for an injunction and the dismissal of his prior action on “extraneous or
technical” grounds, without oral argument, and before the issuance of summons.
Cobb’s request for judicial notice of various website entries regarding
international events, profiles of certain federal judges, irrelevant pleadings in his
3 13-55394
prior criminal actions, and other documents, filed on September 18, 2013, is
denied. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on August 20, 2013, is granted.
AFFIRMED.
4 13-55394