Case ID: f-appx_137/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Allen RIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and TRW Aerospace & Information Systems Inc.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-56511.
    D.C. No. CV-01-00474-JTM/BLM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 24, 2005.
    Robert Allen Riggs, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Jerrilyn T. Malana, Littler Mendelson, Amy Wintersheimer Findley, Gray Cary Ware and Freidenrich, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Allen Riggs appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice on res judicata grounds his claims against Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich (“Gray Cary”) and dismissing without prejudice his claims against TRW. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Riggs stipulated to voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his claims against TRW. We lack jurisdiction over the voluntary dismissal because it is not a final judgment. See Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice the claims against Gray Cary as barred by res judicata. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.1982) (“Res judicata (or claim preclusion) bar[s] all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties ... on the same cause of action.”) (internal quotation omitted).

Riggs’ remaining contentions lack merit.

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.