Case Name: Jeff HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew POMAZAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-25
Citations: 416 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 09-17701
Parties: Jeff HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew POMAZAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Jeff HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew POMAZAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17701.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
Jeff Hancock, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Megan R. O’Carroll, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jeff Hancock, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Hancock voluntarily dismissed two earlier lawsuits against defendants alleging the same claims, and the second dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(B); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining the "two dismissal rule"). Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars Hancock from re-litigating these claims. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res judicata).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.