David Bartholomew v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses A

MEMORANDUM

David B. Bartholomew appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for copyright and trademark infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo an order of dismissal. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bartholomew’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See id. (res judi-cata prohibits lawsuits alleging claims that were, or could have been, raised in a prior lawsuit where there is “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bartholomew’s motion to reconsider its orders of dismissal because Bartholomew failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing for abuse of discretion and setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions against Bartholomew under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Buster v. Greisen, 104…