Jack Dunn; Rose Henley v. EDITH MOLL; SHERRY HALL, Clackamas County Clerk; U.S. BANK, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK DUNN; ROSE HENLEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EDITH MOLL; SHERRY HALL,
Clackamas County Clerk; U.S. BANK, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35545
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01396-HL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
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)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35545
(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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35545
Hall’s request for costs, set forth in Hall’s answering brief, is denied without
prejudice to filing a bill of costs.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --