Adrian Fuller v. Jeh Johnson, 709 F. App'x 847

Plaintiffs Adrian Fuller and Jerry Hudson, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in their employment suit asserting defendant fraudulently concealed evidence from earlier Title VII actions.
The appeal challenges dismissal of Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and the district court’s refusal to set aside prior judgments or allow amendment of the complaint.
District court found discrimination claims barred by res judicata because those claims were raised or could have been raised in prior federal suits that resulted in final judgments on the merits.
District court dismissed retaliation claims for failure to contact an EEO Counselor or an agency official within 45 days of discovering the facts giving rise to the claims, as required by regulation and Ninth Circuit precedent.
Plaintiffs sought to set aside prior judgments alleging fraud on the court; the court denied relief for failure to show fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
The district court also denied leave to amend as futile. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a summary disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Res judicata bars discrimination claims	Fuller/Hudson argued new suit despite prior litigation	Prior suits (or privies) resolved same claims; final judgments on the merits	Affirmed: claims barred by res judicata
Timeliness of retaliation exhaustion	Plaintiffs claimed retaliation but did not timely contact EEO process	Plaintiffs failed to initiate EEO contact within 45 days after awareness	Affirmed: retaliation claims dismissed for failure to exhaust
Relief from prior judgments for alleged fraud on the court	Plaintiffs alleged defendant fraudulently concealed evidence warranting vacatur	Defendant argued no fraud meeting the high Rule 60(d)(3)/60(b)(6) standard	Affirmed: no clear and convincing evidence of fraud; denial not an abuse of discretion
Leave to amend complaint	Plaintiffs sought to amend to add/clarify claims	Defendant opposed; amendment would not cure jurisdictional/threshold defects	Affirmed: amendment would be futile; denial within discretion

FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of de novo review for appeals on certain legal issues)
Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000) (elements and application of res judicata)
Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (Title VII claim accrues upon awareness of the actual injury)
Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (what constitutes initiating contact with agency official under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105)
Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2015) (Rule 60 fraud-on-the-court standard requires an unconscionable plan to improperly influence the court)
United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for fraud-on-the-court claims)
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (denial of leave to amend where amendment would be futile)
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (appellate court will not consider matters not raised below)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not specifically and distinctly raised in opening brief are not considered)