FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD R. LANE, No. 11-16268
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:10-cv-05779-HRL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANNE STAUSBOLL, CEO; ROB
FECKNER, President of the Board of
Administration of the California Public
Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted November 13, 2012 ***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Richard R. Lane appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with
the calculation of his California Public Employees’ Retirement System pension
benefit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal of Lane’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata,
Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lane’s action on the basis of res
judicata because Lane had a final adjudication on the merits of his pension
calculation in California state court. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (preclusive effect of state court judgment is
determined by the law of the state); Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 197 Cal Rptr. 612,
614 (Ct. App. 1983) (under California law, res judicata bars second action “if two
actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the
defendant . . . even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads different theories of
recovery”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Lane’s state law claims after dismissing his federal
claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We construe the
dismissal of the state law claims to be without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas
2 11-16268
Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994).
Lane’s remaining arguments about the merits of his claims are unpersuasive.
Lane’s contention that defendants’ filings constituted fraud on the court is
not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16268