Lucio A. Barroga v. Board of Administration of California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Pers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIO A. BARROGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PERS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15084
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01179-MCE-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lucio A. Barroga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action against the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(“CalPERS”) for reinstatement of his retirement and pension benefits. We have
FILED
JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.
v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
Dismissal was proper because Barroga’s action is barred by a prior
administrative decision, prior state court judgments, and prior federal court
judgments under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Hydranautics v.
FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth federal
claim and issue preclusion doctrines); Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713, 718 (9th
Cir. 1986) (state administrative decisions are given preclusive effect if the
administrative proceedings are conducted with sufficient judicial character and the
parties have an adequate opportunity to litigate); Lucido v. Superior Court, 795
P.2d 1223, 1225 (Cal. 1990) (explaining California’s issue preclusion doctrine);
Slater v. Blackwood, 543 P.2d 593, 594-95 (Cal. 1975) (explaining California’s
claim preclusion doctrine).
To the extent that Barroga sought review of prior state court judgments, his
claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an
allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court
2 13-15084

-- 2 of 3 --

judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction
in federal district court.”).
The district did not abuse its discretion in denying Barroga’s “Request for
Observance of Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. 1062.5(2) for Precedence Consideration of
Case.” See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he
district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation
. . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
All of Barroga’s requests for “judgment of the appeal” are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15084

-- 3 of 3 --