Kenneth Sachs v. James F. Wees

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH SACHS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES F. WEES,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16220
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00655-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on the basis of claim preclusion.
* 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
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16220
Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sachs’s action as barred by the doctrine
of claim preclusion because Sachs raised identical claims in his prior state court
action, which involved the same parties and resulted in a final judgment on the
merits. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal court must
follow state’s preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment);
Peterson v. Newton, 307 P.3d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (setting forth
elements of claim preclusion under Arizona law); see also Migra v. Warren City
Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81-84 (1984) (preclusive effect applies to
state court judgments on § 1983 claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be
futile).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --