Barry Louis Lamon v. J. MASIEL, Correctional Officer;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY LOUIS LAMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. MASIEL, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17796
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Barry Louis Lamon appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17796 2
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000), and based on res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lamon’s access to courts claim at
screening because the second amended complaint failed to state facts suggesting
that the alleged interference hindered Lamon’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous
legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (setting forth actual
injury requirement).
The district court also properly dismissed Lamon’s claims with respect to the
supervisory defendants because the second amended complaint failed to state the
supervisors’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation or a
sufficient causal connection between any supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth requirements for supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the action as barred
by the doctrine of res judicata because Lamon raised, or could have raised, his
claims in a prior 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

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17796 3
were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lamon’s motions
for reconsideration because Lamon failed to show grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration and
standard of review).
Lamon’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
The Clerk shall file the Reply Brief received June 25, 2012.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --