T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B AR R Y L OU I S L AMON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J . M A S I E L , C o rr e c tio n a l O f f ic e r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17796 D. C . No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 3 9 0 - L J OG BC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner B arryL ou i s L am on appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g c iv il r ig h ts vi ol a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a 

# FI LED JU L 26 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17796 2 d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , R es ni ck v. H ayes , 21 3 F . 3d 44 3, 44 7 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) , a n db a s e do n r e s ju d ic a ta , S tew a rt v. U . S. B a n co rp , 2 9 7 F .3 d9 5 3 , 9 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed L am on ’ s a cc es s t o cou rt s c l ai m at s c r e e ni ng be c aus e the s e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o s t a t e f

a c t s s ugge s t i ng tha tthe a l l e ge d i nt e r f

e r e nc e hi nde r e d L a m on’ s e f f ort s t o pur s ue anonf

r i vol ous le g a l c la im . See L ew is v . Casey , 51 8 U . S . 34 3, 35 1 (19 96 ) ( se tt i ng forth actual in ju ryr e q u ir e m e n t) . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o pr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d L a m on’ s c l a i m s w i th r e s pe c tt o the s upe rvi s oryde f

e nda nt s be c aus e the s e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o s t a t e the supervi sors ’ pers on al i nv ol vem enti n the al l eged const i tut i on al depri vat i on or a s uf f i c i e ntc aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n a nys upe rvi s or ’ s w r ongf ul c onduc ta nd the c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See Starr v . B aca , 652 F . 3d 1202, 1205- 07 ( 9th C i r . 2011) (s ett i ng forth requi re m ent s f or supervi soryl i abi l i ty) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the re m ai nd erof the ac t i on as barr ed b yth e d o c tr in e o f

r e s ju d ic a tab e c au s e L a m o n r a is e d , o rc o u ldh a v e r a is e d , h is c l a i m s i n apr i ora c t i on tha ti nvol ve d the s a m e nuc l e us of f a c t s a nd w a s de c i de d on th e m e r its . See O w ens v . Kaise r Fou nd . H eal th P lan , Inc. , 2 4 4 F .3 d7 0 8 , 7 1 3 ( 9 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ R es j ud i ca t a . . . bars l i t i gat i on i n a subsequentac t i on of any c l ai m s that11- 17796 3 w er e r ai se d o r c ou l d h ave been ra i se d i n the pri or ac t i on . ” ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng L a m on’ s m ot i ons f orr e c ons i de r a t i on be c aus e L a m on f a i l e d t o s how gr ounds w a rr a nt i ng r e c o n s id e r a tio n . See Sch. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah Cnt

y. , O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d 1255, 1262- 63 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( s e tt i ng f orth e l e m e nt s f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on a nd s ta n d a r do f

r e v ie w ) . L a m o n ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n a v a ilin g . T he C l e rk s ha l l f

i l e the R e pl yB r i e f

r e c e i ve d J une 25, 2012. AF F I RME D.