Summary
ordering monetary sanctions for attempts to circumvent page limits as "page limits are important to maintain judicial efficiency and ensure fairness to opposing parties"
Summary of this case from Brook v. McCormleyOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. All outstanding motions are denied as moot.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; No. CV-92-04593-EFL, Eugene F. Lynch, District Judge, Presiding.
N.D.Cal., 1994 WL 118306.
AFFIRMED.
Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Apple Gate appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action against the United States Postal Service ("Postal Service"), Postmaster General Marvin Runyon and Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich alleging discrimination and various other causes of action surrounding his termination from employment with the Postal Service. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir.1988), and affirm.
Gate previously brought an action against the Postal Service alleging discrimination in his termination from employment. Gate v. Frank, No. C-89-0226-CAL (N.D.Cal. Oct. 12, 1989) (granting summary judgment for the Postal Service and Postmaster General). Accordingly, the district court properly determined that Gate's action was barred by res judicata. See Robi, 838 F.2d at 321-22 (holding that res judicata prevents subsequent litigation by the same parties of all claims or defenses that were, or could have been, raised in a previous action which led to a final judgment on the merits).
In addition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Gate's Federal Employment Compensation Act ("FECA") claim. See Staacke v. United States Secretary of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 281 (9th Cir.1988) ("Federal courts have no jurisdiction to review final judgments of the Secretary of Labor and his officers in [FECA] matters."). Finally, to the extent that Gate is seeking relief based on torts committed after his termination, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider such claims. See Meridian Int'l Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that exhaustion of administration remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing action under the Federal Torts Claim Act).
AFFIRMED.