FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL MACAHILAS, No. 11-15709
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03199-WBS-
DAD
v.
RICHARD P. GALLOWAY, M.D.; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Macahilas, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956
(9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Macahilas’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Macahilas raised, or could have raised, his claims
against defendants Galloway, Douglas, and Williams in his prior Eighth
Amendment action that involved the same nucleus of facts and was decided on the
merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.
2001) (“Res judicata . . . bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that
were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d
985, 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Denial of leave to amend in a prior action based on
dilatoriness does not prevent application of res judicata in a subsequent action.”);
cf. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“‘[T]he fact that plaintiff was denied leave to amend does not give h[er] the right
to file a second lawsuit based on the same facts.’” (citation omitted).).
Macahilas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15709