Amr Mohsen v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMR MOHSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55606
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07358-MWF-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55606
2010) (dismissal based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,
926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal based on the applicable statute of limitations). We
may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thomson v. Paul, 547 F.3d
1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Mohsen’s action was proper on the basis of claim preclusion
because Mohsen’s claims were raised or could have been raised in a previous
action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final adjudication on
the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14
(9th Cir. 2001) (discussing claim preclusion elements under federal law); see also
Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cty., 69 F.3d 321, 329-30 (9th Cir. 1995)
(recognizing the court’s ability to overlook waiver and raise sua sponte claim
preclusion).
The district court did not err by taking judicial notice of documents filed in
Mohsen’s criminal case. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th
Cir. 2001) (a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without
converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment).
Mohsen’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Mohsen’s request to reassign this case to a different district court judge, set
forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --