Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0466-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith Alan LASKO, Reverend Doctor, Minister of Worldwide Ministries of Jesus Christ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15455
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 25, 2017
    Keith Alan Lasko, Pro Se
    Lindsay Demaree, Ballard Spahr LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Paul Lantieri, III, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keith Alan Lasko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as duplicative his action alleging violations of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Lasko’s action was proper on the basis of issue preclusion because the issue of whether the allegedly defamatory statements were false was actually litigated and decided against Lasko in a prior action, Lasko v. Am. Bd. of Surgery, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01893-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2015). See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161 (setting forth elements of issue preclusion).

We reject as meritless Lasko’s contention that he was held to a higher pleading standard as a pro se litigant.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.