Court Opinion

ID: 9891187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 19:00:34.556489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:39.360909
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYDIA McCOY,                                    No. 21-35935

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:21-cv-01580-MC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
SC TIGER MANOR, LLC; BH
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; JAMIE
LANDRY; BRITTANY BARBERA;
LUCAS ROGERS; IQ DATA
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.;
JUSTIN WHITE; EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC;
MADISON TUCKER; DOES, 1 through 100
inclusive; JOHN DEGRAVELLES; SCOTT
JOHNSON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Lydia McCoy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of disputes regarding a

lease agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the

basis of judicial immunity); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th

Cir. 2002) (dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed as barred by judicial immunity

McCoy’s claims against the federal judicial officers presiding over McCoy’s prior

federal action filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. See Duvall v. County of

Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to the

determination of whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to absolute judicial

immunity); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial

immunity extends to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute

on other grounds.

      The district court properly concluded that McCoy’s claims against all other

defendants were raised or could have been raised between the parties or their

privies in McCoy’s prior federal action filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Middle District of Louisiana entered a final

judgment dismissing this action in its entirety. McCoy v. SC Tiger Manor, LLC, et

                                          2                                    21-35935
al., No. 19-723-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. Oct. 11, 2022). Accordingly, McCoy’s

claims against the non-judicial defendants in this action are precluded. See

Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (federal claim preclusion “applies when there is (1) an

identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity

between parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Spoklie

v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2005) (final judgment entered in a

prior suit while an appeal is pending in a second suit can have preclusive effect in

the second suit).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to

amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard for review

and explaining that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be

futile).

       We reject as without merit McCoy’s contentions of judicial bias.

       McCoy’s request for a refund of filing fees paid in the district court, set forth

in the opening brief, is denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           3                                    21-35935