FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 11-15496
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00482-LDG-
RAM
v.
ESMAIL D. ZANJANI; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2012 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Hussein Hussein appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action challenging the issuance of subpoenas. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
We grant defendants’ motion for judicial notice of the district court and
appellate court dockets in the related cases because the record of this case and the
parties’ arguments contain numerous references to documents in those cases. See
Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).
1. The Law Firm defendants
The district court granted the Law Firm defendants’ motion to dismiss all
claims against them. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal order, Knievel
v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning
Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2003). The allegations in appellant’s
complaint were conclusory and failed to allege facts sufficient to state a federal
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), or 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
In addition, appellant was precluded by principles of collateral estoppel from
litigating whether the subpoenas were wrongfully issued. An issue decided in prior
litigation in a ruling that was on the merits and final may not be relitigated by a
party to the prior litigation. Dias v. Elique, 436 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006).
In at least two related cases, the district court made final determinations on the
merits that the Law Firm defendants’ issuance of the subpoenas was not improper.
See Hussein v. Frederick, et al., 06-0585-RLH Doc # 81 (order granting motion to
2 11-15496
dismiss); Hussein v. NSHE, et al., 04-0455-RAM Doc # 669 (order finding Dr.
Hussein in contempt and imposing sanctions).
2. The University defendants
The district court granted the University defendants’ motion for judgment on
the pleadings based on collateral estoppel. We review de novo the district court’s
order granting a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings.
Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Appellant alleged only
derivative liability on the part of the University defendants based on the conduct of
their defense counsel in issuing the subpoenas in the prior litigation. The district
court’s prior rulings in related cases established that the subpoenas were not
improper and foreclosed relitigation of that issue. Dias, 436 F.3d at 1129.
3. Remaining contentions
We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions, including that the
district court erred by failing to rule on his emergency motion and dismissing the
case after appellant withdrew the only pleading in the case, his second amended
complaint. These contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15496