Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard WHITEHURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CVS PHARMACY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15714
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Richard Whitehurst, Pro Se
    Michael E. Brewer, Esquire, Attorney, Aexa Woerner, Esquire, Attorney, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Walnut Creek, CA, for 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

Richard Whitehurst 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 discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Whitehurst’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Whitehurst’s claims arose out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, and were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. (setting forth elements of res judicata and explaining that the doctrine bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action); Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir. 1988) (a'final judgment in the district court retains its res judicata consequences while the decision is pending appeal).

We reject as unsupported by the record Whitehurst’s contentions regarding default judgment and defendant’s alleged fraud on the court.

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