MICHAEL MACAHILAS V. RICHARD GALLOWAY, No. 11-15709 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL MACAHILAS, No. 11-15709 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03199-WBSDAD v. RICHARD P. GALLOWAY, M.D.; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Michael Macahilas, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Macahilas s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Macahilas raised, or could have raised, his claims against defendants Galloway, Douglas, and Williams in his prior Eighth Amendment action that involved the same nucleus of facts and was decided on the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) ( Res judicata . . . bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2005) ( Denial of leave to amend in a prior action based on dilatoriness does not prevent application of res judicata in a subsequent action. ); cf. Adams v. Cal. Dep t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) ( [T]he fact that plaintiff was denied leave to amend does not give h[er] the right to file a second lawsuit based on the same facts. (citation omitted).). Macahilas s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 11-15709
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.
