917 F2d 27 Alexander v. County of Los Angeles
917 F.2d 27
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Jimmie ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Los Angeles County Civil
Service Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 2, 1990.
Decided Oct. 22, 1990.
Before BOOCHEVER, BEEZER and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Jimmie Alexander appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Los Angeles County and the County Civil Service Commission. We affirm.
On May 11, 1989, Alexander filed a complaint in the Central District of California. He alleged he was discharged from employment with the County of Los Angeles on September 6, 1977 because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, et. seq. He also alleged that the absence of a pretermination hearing deprived him of his right to due process, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The district court, on defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaints on the ground of res judicata. The court also sanctioned Alexander for relitigating claims previously rejected. Finally, the court instructed the Clerk of the Court not to accept any more filings from Alexander without the court's prior approval. Alexander appeals.
Alexander has raised almost identical claims against the same defendants in previous state and federal lawsuits. See Alexander v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Comm'n, No. C-251-961 (Cal.Sup. Dec. 7, 1978), aff'd, No. 56626 (Cal.Ct.App. n.d.), aff'd, (Cal. Jan. 30, 1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 924 (1980); Alexander v. Los Angeles County, No. CV 82-3834-KN (C.D.Cal. Oct. 8, 1982), aff'd without op., 722 F.2d 744 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 822 (1984); Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, No. CV 87-7773-KN (C.D.Cal. Apr. 29, 1988), aff'd, No. 88-6026 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 1989). A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the action. Federal Dept. Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); see also Sidney v. Zah, 718 F.2d 1453, 1459 (9th Cir.1983) ("[E]xceptions to claim preclusion are narrow."). The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed. Defendants' request for sanctions on appeal is denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3