22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d0,MEMORANDUM PiAnge Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her education discrimination action alleging violations of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judica-ta. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action on the basis of res judica-ta because Jackson raised or could have raised her claims in a prior action against the same defendants, which resulted in an involuntary dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order directing her to file an amended complaint. See id. (discussing the elements of res judicata, and explaining that a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b) is an “adjudication on the merits” for res judicata purposes). We reject Jackson’s contentions concerning waiver and defendants’ failure to provide the district court notice of her related action. Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed on January 16, 2015, is granted. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T507,

MEMORANDUM

PiAnge Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her education discrimination action alleging violations of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judica-ta. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action on the basis of res judica-ta because Jackson raised or could have raised her claims in a prior action against the same defendants, which resulted in an involuntary dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order directing her to file an amended complaint. See id. (discussing the elements of res judicata, and explaining that a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b) is an “adjudication on the merits” for res judicata purposes).

We reject Jackson’s contentions concerning waiver and defendants’ failure to provide the district court notice of her related action.

Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed on January 16, 2015, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

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