John Corrigan v. Fred Pflanz

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, John L. Corrigan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants abused Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in two prior actions. We review de novo. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082,1086 (9th Cir.2008). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Corrigan’s claim concerning defendants’ failure to satisfy Rule 11’s safe harbor provision in his 2003 action. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The appropriate remedy for ... failure to satisfy safe harbor is a denial of [the] request for Rule 11 sanctions....”). Further, Corrigan’s claims alleging Rule 11 abuses were barred under the doctrine of res judicata because he could have raised them in prior actions. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in…