Shameem Gafoor, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United Airlines, Maintenance Operating Center--sfoer,defendant-appellee, 141 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 1998)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Shameem Gafoor appeals pro se the district court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) dismissal of his employment discrimination action against United Air Lines on res judicata grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal de novo, see Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass'n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 363 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gafoor's action on res judicata grounds. The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties on all claims that were, or could have been, raised in a previous action which led to a final judgment on the merits. See FDIC v. Alshuler (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 92 F.3d 1503, 1506 (9th Cir. 1996). Gafoor's claims either were or could have been raised in Gafoor v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. C-94-4495-MCC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
