Court Opinion

ID: 9955587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:01:32.469935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.640056
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN C. LEVI,                                 No. 23-35170

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Alaska
                   Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-

      *
             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).
Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under res judicata). We

affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Levi’s claims concerning his

unemployment benefits as barred by res judicata because Levi previously raised

nearly identical claims against the same defendants or their privies in a prior

federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d

at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata).

      To the extent any of Levi’s claims are not barred by res judicata, dismissal

of those claims was proper because Levi failed to allege facts sufficient to state any

plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     23-35170