KEITH LASKO V. WILLIAM ROBERTS, No. 16-15455 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 25 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEITH ALAN LASKO, Reverend Doctor, Minister of Worldwide Ministries of Jesus Christ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15455 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00967-KJD-GWF Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM C. ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Keith Alan Lasko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as duplicative his action alleging violations of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * 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). discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP, 543 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Lasko’s action was proper on the basis of issue preclusion because the issue of whether the allegedly defamatory statements were false was actually litigated and decided against Lasko in a prior action, Lasko v. Am. Bd. of Surgery, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01893-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2015). See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892 (setting forth elements of issue preclusion). We reject as meritless Lasko’s contention that he was held to a higher pleading standard as a pro se litigant. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15455

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.