NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE P. MARKS, No. 12-17707
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-03851-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TREVNOR ASKEW; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leslie P. Marks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 42
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans,
*
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). Accordingly, Marks’s
request for oral argument, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, is denied.
Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim);
Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal
on basis of claim preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Marks’s claims
were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the parties or their
privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at
987 (setting forth claim preclusion elements and requirements for identity of
claims under federal law); Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose,
420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing claim preclusion under California
law); see also Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (the
doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised
and those that could have been raised in the prior action).
We reject as unsupported by the record Marks’s contentions of judicial bias
and due process violations.
Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed on July 9, 2013, and Marks’s
request for judicial notice, filed on August 13, 2013, are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17707