United States v. 2020-04-21 | 19-55481 | EDWARD BINNS V. USA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD WAYNE BINNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55481

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00696-ODW-SS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Edward Wayne Binns appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his action alleging claims related to his former employment with the
United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

*
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

APR 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55481
review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-
Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Binns’s action as barred by the doctrine
of res judicata because Binns litigated these claims against defendants, or their
privies, in a prior federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court
order “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987-88
(elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they both arise from the
same transactional nucleus of facts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the
complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1127, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review; district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend, even if no request to amend
the pleading was made, if amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.