N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ESLEY I. NUNN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ELISSA A. LE B L ANC , AKA M e l issa Fe nswic k, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15770 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-00905-PJH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. W e sle y I. Nunn a p pe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l and sta te la w c la im s for the re sc ission of a c o ntra c t a

nd re turn of re a l prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w 

# FIL ED DEC 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii). Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of Nunn’ s a c tion wa s prope r be c a use it involve s the sa

m e c a use s of a c tion a s the prior sta

te an d fe de ra l c ourt c a se s whe re Nunn wa s a pa rty , a nd be c a use the issue of whe the r his sta te la wre sc ission c la im wa s ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions wa s litiga

te d a nd de c ide d in prior sta

te c ourt a c tions. Se e W hite v . C i ty of Pasadena , 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t C a lifornia ’ s issuepre c lusion doc trine “pre c lude s re litiga tion of issue s a

rgue d a nd de c ide d in prior proc e e dings”and se tting forth six crite ria to de te rm ine whe the r an issue is pre c l ude d (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i te d)); Brodhe im v . C ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha t C a lifornia ’ s doc t

rine of c la im pre c lusion is ba se d on a

prim ary rights the ory

an d de fining “

prim ary right” ); Sidhu v . Fle c to C

o ., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th C ir. 2002) (e xpla ining fe d e ra l c la im pre c lusion doc t

rine ); M IB, Inc . v . Supe rior C

ourt , 164 C a l. R

ptr. 828, 832 (C t. App. 1980) (e xpla ining tha t prior dismissa ls on proc e dura l grounds ha v e pre c lusive e ffe c t a s to theproc e dura l issuede c ide d).

1 4 - 1 5 7 7 0 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Nunn’ s m otion to proc e e d in form a p a

upe ris (“ IFP” ) be c a

use Nunn did not dem onstra te tha t he wa s una ble to pa y the c ourt’ s filing fe e due to pove rty or indige nc y . Se eEsc obe do v . Apple b e e s , 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th C ir. 2015) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w and e xpla ining tha

t a n a ffidavit is suffic ie nt unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a) if it sta te s that “ the a ffiant c annot pa

y the c ourt c osts a

nd still a fford the ne c e ssitie s of life ” ). B e c a use we a ffirm

on the ba sis of C a lifornia ’ s pre c lusion doc t rine s , we do not a ddre ss Nunn’ s othe r argum e nts re ga rding thedismissa l of his fe de ra l and sta te la w c la im s. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 7 7 0 3