Jehan Mir v. Frandzell, Robin, Bloom, Csato , 699 F. App'x 752 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEHAN ZEB MIR, No. 16-56251
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-04101-CAS-FFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANDZEL, ROBIN, BLOOM, CSATO,
LC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jehan Zeb Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341
(9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S.
*
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).
Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal based on res judicata).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mir’s federal claims on the basis of res
judicata because these claims were raised or could have been raised in a prior
federal action between the parties or those in privity with them that resulted in a
final judgment on the merits. See Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (elements of
res judicata).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mir leave to amend
his complaint. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,
1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district
court may dismiss without leave where amendment would be futile).
We reject as without merit Mir’s contention that his case was improperly
transferred to Judge Snyder following appellees’ filing a notice of related cases.
See C.D. Cal. General Order No. 16-05.
The request of appellees Iungerich & Spackman, Paul Spackman, and
Russell Iungerich for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in their answering brief, is
denied without prejudice to filing a timely motion for fees and a timely bill of
costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. Their request to modify the judgment to declare
2 16-56251
Mir a vexatious litigant, also set forth in their answering brief, is denied.
Mir’s request for assignment of his case to a different appeal panel (Docket
Entry No. 22) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-56251