Shaun Robinson v. Nevada System of Higher Educ , 692 F. App'x 377 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUN ROBINSON, No. 16-16318
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00169-MMD-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Shaun Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his dismissal from
nursing school. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.
2007) (dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s fraud claim because
Robinson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants intended to
induce Robinson to act or refrain from acting in reliance on defendants’ alleged
misrepresentations. See Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (Nev. 1992)
(per curiam) (setting forth elements of a fraud claim under Nevada law).
The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s breach of contract, breach
of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, due process, and Title IX claims as
barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Robinson’s claims were raised,
or could have been raised, in a prior action between the parties or their privies that
resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe, 477 F.3d at 1097-98(setting forth requirements for claim preclusion under Nevada law). Contrary to
Robinson’s contention, the district court’s consideration of the state court decision
did not convert defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary
judgment. See Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In deciding
2 16-16318
whether to dismiss a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court may look beyond
the plaintiff’s complaint to matters of public record.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Robinson’s contentions concerning
extrinsic fraud on the state court and the applicability of the England reservation
doctrine.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16318