Jeff Hancock v. Andrew Pomazal;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See**
28 U.S.C. §636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JEFF HANCOCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANDREW POMAZAL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17701
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00065-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 15, 2011***
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeff Hancock, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17701 2
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of
res judicata because Hancock voluntarily dismissed two earlier lawsuits against
defendants alleging the same claims, and the second dismissal “operates as an
adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B); Commercial Space Mgmt.
Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining the “two
dismissal rule”). Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars Hancock from re-
litigating these claims. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res
judicata).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --