Cyril Kolocotronis v. Benefis Healthcare;

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).
JS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYRIL KOLOCOTRONIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BENEFIS HEALTHCARE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-35825
D.C. No. CV-07-00074-
DWM/JCL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Cyril Kolocotronis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as barred by the doctrine of
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court certified that Kolocotronis’s appeal was not taken in1
good faith, thus revoking Kolocotronis’s in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). We grant in forma pauperis status.
JS/Research 07-35825 2
res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,1
Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Kolocotronis raised
the same claims against defendants and their privies in a prior federal action that
was dismissed as frivolous under section 1915. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (explaining that the dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint
as frivolous under section 1915 may have a res judicata effect on frivolousness
determinations for future in forma pauperis proceedings); see also Mpoyo, 430
F.3d at 987 (listing elements of res judicata).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --