Irene Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
Irene Tritz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging discrimination, retaliation, due process, and related tort claims. We have jurisdiction under
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claim because they are barred by res judicata, as Tritz raised, or could have raised, these claims against the same defendant in a prior federal action in which there was a final judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and explaining that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have been raised” in a prior action).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s due process claim because Tritz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the U.S. Postal Service denied her procedural due process in addressing her 2009 complaint. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (setting forth requirements for procedural due process). The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s “abuse of power” claim as this claim is derivative of her due process claim.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim because the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. See
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tritz’s motion to compel discovery because it failed to comply with the local rules. See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
Robert ABELL; Lisa J. Abell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Suse DODSON; Joe Ruiz, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56716
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed October 4, 2016
Robert Abell, Pro Se.
Lisa J. Abell, Pro Se.
Darwin R. Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Francesca Ugolini, Attorney, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
Robert Abell and Lisa J. Abell appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging forgery in connection with four tax lien notices. We have jurisdiction under
The Abells fail to challenge the district court’s dismissal of their action for failure to prosecute, and have therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”).
Even if the Abells had not waived their challenge, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Abells’ action for failure to prosecute because the Abells failed to file an amended complaint despite receiving an extension of time to do so and being warned of the consequences of failing to file it. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal Amancio MORALES, a.k.a. Amancio Cristobal Morales-Beltran, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50221
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016 * Filed October 04, 2016