Steven C. Levi v. Anchorage School District;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN C. LEVI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-35170
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-
* 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
MAR 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-35170
Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under res judicata). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Levi’s claims concerning his
unemployment benefits as barred by res judicata because Levi previously raised
nearly identical claims against the same defendants or their privies in a prior
federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d
at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata).
To the extent any of Levi’s claims are not barred by res judicata, dismissal
of those claims was proper because Levi failed to allege facts sufficient to state any
plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --