N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KR ISHNA REDDY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C B AY SYSTEM S HOLDINGS, LTD.; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16658 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01324-PSG 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 Pa ul S. Gre w a l, M a g i strate Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d July

22, 2014 *** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Krishna R e ddy a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing he r e m ploy m e nt a c tion a lle ging va

rious fe de ra l a

nd sta te la w c la im s. W e have 

# F IL ED JUL 31 2014 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

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion a dism issa l for fa ilure to se rve , Oy ama v . She e han (In re She e h an) , 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th C i r. 2001), a

nd de novo a

dism i ssa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la i m , He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing R e ddy ’ s a c tion a ga inst theindividual de fe nda nts be c a use R e ddy

fa i le d to se rve the m

prope rly , a

nd fa ile d to e sta

blish good c a

use for the la c k of se rvic e whe n the c ourt ga v e he r notic e and a n opportunity

to do so. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4(m) (distric t c o urt m ay sua sponte dism iss a

n a c tion for fa ilure to se rve “ a fte r notic e to the pla intiff” ); se e also Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4 (re quire m e nts for prope r se rvic e on a n individual); In reShe e han , 253 F.3d a

t 511 (good c a

use showing to e xte nd tim e to e ffe c t prope r se rvic e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R e ddy ’ s a c tion a ga inst there m a ining de fe nda nts a s pre c lude d

by the doc trine of re s judic ata be c a use R e ddy a lle ge d ne arly ide ntic a l c la i m s re late d to thesa m e e m ploy m e nt re lationship aga inst the se de fe nda nts, or pa rtie s with whom

the y are in privity , in two prior a c tions in which the re we re fina l judgm e nt on them e rits. Se e Ste w a rt v . U.S. Banc orp , 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth e le m e nts of re s judic ata , a nd noting tha

t it ba rs subse que nt litiga

tion of c la im s tha

t we re ra ise d a

nd tha t c ould ha ve be e n ra ise d in the prior a c tion); Unite d State s v . Sc himme ls (In re

Sc himme ls) , 127 F.3d

1 3 - 1 6 6 5 8 2875, 881 (9th C ir. 1997) (privity e xists for purpose s of re s judic ata whe re the inte re s ts of a

non-pa rty we re re pre se nte d a d e quat e ly by a pa rty in the origina l suit). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c la ring R e ddy

a ve xatious litiga nt a fte r giving he r notic e and a n opportunity

to be he ard, de ve loping a n a de quate re c ord, m a

king findings re g arding he r pre vious frivolous ac tions a ga inst the s e and othe r partie s, a

nd na rrowly ta iloring thepre -filing orde r. S e e Molsk i v . Ev e rgre e n Dy nasty C

orp. , 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uria m ) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand fa c tors tha t distric t c ourts m

ust e x a m i ne be fore e nte ring a

pre -filing re vie w orde r a ga inst a ve x at ious litiga

nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng R e ddy ’ s m o tion for disqua lific ation be c a

u se R e ddy

fa ile d to e sta

blish grounds for such re lie f, a nd by de ny ing a s m o ot R e ddy ’ s m otion to proc e e d in form a pa upe ris be c a

use R e d dy a lre a dy pa id the filing fe e . Se e Voigt v . Sav e ll , 70 F.3d 1552, 1565 (9th C ir. 1995) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand fa c tors wa rranting judic ia l disqua lific ation unde r 28 U.S.C . § 455); O’Loughlin v . Doe , 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th C ir. 1990) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wfrom

the de n ia l of a

n a pplic ation to proc e e d in form a pa u pe ris); Lipsc omb v . Madigan , 221 F.2d 798 (9th C ir. 1955) (dismi ssing a s m oot a n a ppe a l from

the de nia l of a

n a pplic at ion to proc e e d in form a pa upe ris be c a use a ppe lla nt subse que ntly

pa id the filing fe e ). 1 3 - 1 6 6 5 8

3W e re je c t R e ddy ’ s c onte ntions re g arding thedistric t c ourt’ s a lle ge d ly e rrone ous gra

nt of de fe nda

nts’ m otion for judic ia l notic e an d de nia l of he r m otion for de fa ult judgme nt; there c usa l of a ll “ R e public an Pre side nt-nom inate d” judge s on this c ourt; a

nd the re a ssignm e nt of this c a s e to a diffe re nt distric t c ourt judge . R e ddy ’ s re que st for a

n orde r re quiring de fe nda nts to pa y the filing fe e s we wa ive d for he r a

ppe a l, se t forth in he r ope ning a nd re ply brie fs, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 6 5 8 4