MEMORANDUM

Lucio A. Barroga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) for reinstatement of his retirement and pension benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Dismissal was proper because Barroga’s action is barred by a prior administrative decision, prior state court judgments, and prior federal court judgments under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885, 887-88 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth federal claim and issue preclusion doctrines); Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713, 718 (9th Cir.1986) (state administrative decisions are given preclusive effect if the administrative proceedings are conducted with sufficient judicial character and the parties have an adequate opportunity to litigate); Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 , 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1990) (explaining California’s issue preclusion doctrine); Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791 , 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593, 594-95 (1975) (explaining California’s claim preclusion doctrine).

To the extent that Barroga sought review of prior state court judgments, his claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir.2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.”).

The district did not abuse its discretion in denying Barroga’s “Request for Observance of CaLCode of Civ. Pro. 1062.5(2) for Precedence Consideration of Case.” See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir.2003) (“[T]he district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation .... ” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

All of Barroga’s requests for “judgment of the appeal” are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.