FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT S. CROWLEY, No. 15-35204
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00106-TMB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL BOOTHE, Dr.; LAURA
BROOKS, MS, LPA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alaska state prisoner Robert S. Crowley appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious dental needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v.
U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Crowley’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Crowley alleged nearly identical claims against
defendants, or their privies, in a prior federal action in which there was a final
judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata); United States v.
Schimmels (In re Schimmels), 127 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 1997) (privity for
purposes of the doctrine of res judicata is a “legal conclusion designating a person
so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he represents precisely
the same right in respect to the subject matter involved” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute or comply with a court order “operates as an adjudication on the
merits”).
Contrary to Crowley’s contention, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss after the deadline
for dispositive motions had passed because defendants demonstrated good cause.
See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)
(setting forth standard of review and “good cause” requirement to modify a
scheduling order).
2 15-35204
Appellees’ “Motion to Strike Appellant’s Request for Status Update
Hearing,” filed on January 25, 2016, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35204