Leo Stoller v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust

MEMORANDUM

Leo Stoller and Christopher Stoller appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing this action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion because the elements of both doctrines were satisfied. See Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth elements of issue preclusion); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a pre-filing order against appellants because they had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the district court developed an adequate record for review, made findings regarding their frivolous litigation history, and tailored the restriction narrowly. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir.1990) (stating standard of review and discussing four factors a district court must…