Opinion
22-35545
02-27-2024
JACK DUNN; ROSE HENLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDITH MOLL; SHERRY HALL, Clackamas County Clerk; U.S. BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01396-HL, Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Jack Dunn and Rose Henley appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging various federal and state law claims arising from the foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against U.S. Bank and Moll as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because plaintiffs raised identical claims in a prior federal action, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (setting forth elements of claim preclusion and explaining that claim preclusion "prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim against Hall because there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2071. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (explaining that criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a private right of action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
Hall's request for costs, set forth in Hall's answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a bill of costs.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.