Chris Grindling v. Lance Marks;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS GRINDLING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LANCE MARKS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16494
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00096-LEK-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Chris Grindling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. 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.
* 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
JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16494
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Grindling’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Grindling alleged nearly identical claims against
the same defendants 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 arise from the
same transactional nucleus of facts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Grindling’s
action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is
proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --