Leanna Smith v. State of Arizona

MEMORANDUM

Leanna Smith appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant-Appel-lees’ motion to dismiss on claim preclusion grounds. Consolidated with that appeal is an appeal of the district court’s order denying fees requested by Defendant-Appellants Kathryn Coffman and St. Joseph’s' Hospital and Medical Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1.“This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judica-ta.” W. Radio Servs. Co., Inc. v. Glick-man, 123 F.3d 1189 , 1192 (9th Cir.1997) (citing UPS, Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 77 F.3d 1178 , 1182 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action. In order for res judicata to apply there must be: 1) an identity of claims, 2) a final judgment on the merits, and 3) identity or privity between the parties.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The district court accorded preclusive effect to two prior actions, Smith v. Barrow Neurological Institute, No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM, 2012 WL 4359057 (D.Ariz. Sept. 21, 2012) (“Smith /”) and Smith v. Arizona, No.…