Irene Tritz v. Patrick Donahoe

MEMORANDUM

Irene Tritz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging discrimination, retaliation, due process, and related tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claim because they are barred by res judi-cata, as Tritz raised, or could have raised, these claims against the same defendant in a prior federal action in which there was a final judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and explaining that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have been raised” in a prior action).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tritz’s due process claim because Tritz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the U.S. Postal Service denied her procedural due process in addressing her 2009 complaint. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96…