EDWARD BINNS V. USA, No. 19-55481 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD WAYNE BINNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-55481 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00696-ODW-SS MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Edward Wayne Binns appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging claims related to his former employment with the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton ElectroOptical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Binns’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Binns litigated these claims against defendants, or their privies, in a prior federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they both arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend, even if no request to amend the pleading was made, if amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 19-55481

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.