NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LATANYA CRAMER, No. 13-15865
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00375-AWI-
GSA
v.
S. DICKINSON, Officer; PATRICIA A. MEMORANDUM*
JOHNSON, Nurse Practitioner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Latanya Cramer appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated her Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights when they subjected her to an
*
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).
allegedly illegal digital cavity search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of the doctrine
of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cramer’s action as barred by res
judicata because Cramer raised identical claims against these defendants in a prior
federal action that was adjudicated on the merits. See Cramer v. Dickinson et al.,
No. 1:08-cv-00723-CRB (PR); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute or comply with a court order “operates as an adjudication on the
merits”); see also Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res judicata).
We do not consider Cramer’s requests to produce paperwork relating to the
December 19, 2005 incident because they were raised for the first time in her
Reply Brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Clerk is directed to file the Reply Brief lodged on October 21, 2013.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15865