BINNS v. UNITED STATES (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Wayne Binns appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging claims related to his former employment with the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Binns's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Binns litigated these claims against defendants, or their privies, in a prior federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they both arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend, even if no request to amend the pleading was made, if amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.