CARNEICE HALL-JOHNSON V. CITY & COUNTY OF S.F., No. 19-15508 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARNEICE KATHRINE HALLJOHNSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15508 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05553-MMC Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; MICKI CALLAHAN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Carneice Kathrine Hall-Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging federal law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis * 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). Hall-Johnson’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hall-Johnson’s action on the basis of claim preclusion because Hall-Johnson raised, or could have raised, her claims in her prior federal court action, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of federal claim preclusion and explaining that an identity of claims exists between the first and second adjudications when “the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also TahoeSierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is immaterial whether the claims asserted . . . [in the second action] were actually pursued in the [first] action . . . ; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether they could have been brought.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 19-15508

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.