Ella W. Horn v. Experis Us Inc., a Manpower Brand Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELLA W. HORN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EXPERIS US INC., a Manpower Brand
Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-17067
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00212-JAM-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Ella W. Horn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and California law. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d
* 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
MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-17067
877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Horn’s action because Horn’s claims
were raised or could have been raised in a previous action between the parties 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) (setting forth elements of claim
preclusion under federal law and explaining that an identity of claims exists
between the first and second adjudications when the two suits arise out of the same
transactional nucleus of facts).
The district court properly denied Horn’s motion for remand to state court
because defendant timely removed the action and the district court had subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth
requirements for diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (explaining that
notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of defendant’s receipt, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 415.30 (setting forth procedure and requirements for service of process by mail);
see also Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting
forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Horn’s motion for
production of court transcripts at government expense because Horn failed to
establish that the appeal presents a substantial question. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f);

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-17067
McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated on other
grounds sub nom. Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991) (setting forth
standard of review and noting that relief under § 753 is permissive).
We reject as without merit Horn’s contentions that (1) the district court’s
denial of her motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal were not mooted by
this court’s grant of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) the district
court was biased against her.
To the extent Horn seeks relief related to the public filing of her personal or
financial information on the district court docket, the request is denied without
prejudice to filing a motion for appropriate relief in the district court.
We do not consider Horn’s contentions regarding her prior appeal, No. 19-
17396.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --