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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c 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 W I LL I AM L. SC OTT, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J O H N E . P O T T E R , P o s tm a s te rG e n e r a l, U ni t ed S t at es P ost al S ervi ce , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 55353 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 6 4 9 6 - R GK F MO 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G a ry K l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 4, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , W . F L E T C H E R , an d N G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W i l l i am L . S co ttap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f h i s act i o n ag ai n st 

# FI LED MA R 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

J ohn E . P ott e r , P os tm a s t e rG e ne r a l of the U ni t e d S t a t e s P os t a l S e rvi c e , a l l e gi ng di s c r i m i na t i on a nd r e t a l i a t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the R e habi l i t a t i on A c tof 1973 a nd T it le V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A ct o f 1 9 6 5 . S co ttalso ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of hi s R e que s tf

orC ont i nua nc e of

the M ot i on f

orS um m a ry J udgm e nt H e a r i ng P ur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 56( f

) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n r e s ju d ic a ta , F. T . C . v. G arve

y , 38 3 F . 3d 89 1, 89 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad e n ia l o f

aR u le 5 6 ( f

) ap p lic a tio n , V

isa Int ’l Se r v . A s s ’ n v . B a n kc a rd Ho lde rs o

f A m. , 7 8 4 F .2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . W e a f f irm . 1. T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y di s m i s s e d S c ott ’ s c l a i m s of di s c r i m i na t i on a nd r e ta lia tio n o n r e s ju d ic a tag r o u n d s . T h e d o c tr in e o f r e s ju d ic a ta“b a r s a n y la w s u its on any c l ai m s thatw er e r ai se d o r c ou l d h ave been ra i se d i n a pri or ac t i on . ” G arve y , 38 3 F . 3d at89 7 (qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). R es j ud i ca t a app l i es w hen the r e i s “ ( 1) a n i de nt i ty of c l a i m s ; ( 2) af

i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ; a nd ( 3) i dent i ty or pri vi ty betw ee n p art i es . ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . T h e o n ly di s put e he r e i s w he the rthe r e i s a n i de nt i ty of c l a i m s be tw e e n the i ns t a nta c t i on a nd th e p r io ra c tio n . T he r e i s a n i de nt i ty of

c l a i m s be tw e e n the pr i ora c t i on a nd the i ns t a nta c t i on3

b e c au s e th e w r o n g f

u l a c t s a l l e g e d i n th e c o mp l a i n t s w e r e b a s e d o n th e s a me tr a n s a c tio n a l n u c le u s o f f a c ts . See O w ens v . Kaise r Fou nd . H eal th P lan , Inc. , 244 F . 3d 70 8, 71 4 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ T he ce ntra l cr i t er i on i n d et erm i ni ng w hether there i s a n i de nt i ty of

c l a i m s be tw e e n the f

i r s ta nd s e c ond a dj udi c a t i on i s w he the rthe tw o s u its a r is e o u t o f

th e s a m e tr a n s a c tio n a l n u c le u s o f f a c ts .” ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed)) . In al l three com pl ai nt s, S cottal l eged that , af t erhe w as re nd er ed d is ab le d f

r o m as h o u ld e rin

ju ry a t w o rk , A p p e lle e d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h im d u e to h is d is ab ility a n d r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h im f o rf ilin g E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity c la im s . T he onl y di f

f e r e nc e a m ong the thr e e c om pl a i nt s i s tha tthe a c t s a l l e ge d i n the p r io ra c tio n o c c u rr e d a t ad if f e r e n t tim e th a n th e a c ts a lle g e d in th e in s ta n t a c tio n . N e ve r the l e s s , S c ottne i the rs oughtas t a y i n the pr i ora c t i on t o pur s ue a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s f orthe w r ongf

ul a c t s a l l e ge d i n the i ns t a nta c t i on, nor a tt e m pt e d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntt o i nc l ude the w r ongf ul a c t s a l l e ge d i n the i ns t a nta c t i on e ve n though a l l the w r ongf ul a c t s oc c urr e d be f

or e the pr i ora c t i on w a s f ile d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Se e O w e ns , 2 4 4 F. 3 d a t7 1 4 - 1 5 ( “ Ti t l e V I I c l a i ms ar e notexem ptfr om the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a w here pl ai nt i ff s have nei ther soug hta s t ayfr om the di stri ctcourtfor the pu rpose of pursui ng T i t l e V II a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s n o ra tte m p te d to a m e n d th e irc o m p la in t to in c lu d e th e ir4

T itle V I I c la im s .” ) . T h u s , th e in s ta n t a c tio n is b a rr e d b e c au s e th e r e is a n id e n tity o f c la im s a n d th e c la im s c o u ld h a v e b e e n r a is e d in th e p r io ra c tio n . G arve y , 383 F .3 d a t 8 9 7 . 2. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng S c ott ’ s R e que s tf or C on t i nu ance of the M ot i on for S um m ary Jud gm entH ea ri ng P ursuantt o F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (f ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed S cott ’ s R ul e 56(f) appl i ca t i on because S cottfa i l ed t o i dent i fyspec i fi c f ac t s thatfurther di sc ov ery w ou l d revealno r di d h e e xp l ai n w hy tho se fa ct s w ou l d p re cl ud e s um m ary ju d g m e n t. See T

atum v. C i t

y of Sa n Francisc o , 44 1 F . 3d 10 90 , 11 00 (9th C i r. 2006) ( “ F a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 56( f

) i s apr ope rgr ound f orde ny i ng r e l i e f

. ” ) ( a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , S c ottf a i l e d t o i de nt i f

y a ny e f f o r t to c o n d u c t d is c o v e ry d u r in g th e w e e k s h is n e w c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n te d h im in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Se e P anatr oni c U SA v . A T& T

C or p. , 28 7 F . 3d 84 0, 84 6 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ A di stri ctcourtabuses i t s di sc re t i on on l y i f the m ov antdi l i gent l y pursued i t s pr e vi ous di s c ove ry opportuni t i e s , a nd i f the m ova ntc a n s how how a l l ow i ng addi t i on al di sc ov ery w ou l d h ave prec l ud ed sum m ary j ud gm ent . ” ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) . AF F I RME D.