Edmonson

MEMORANDUM **

Narvelle M. Edmonson appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and state law claims against the City of Martinez (“City”), Chief of Police Gregory Agresta (“Agresta”) and Deputy City Clerk Mercy Cabral (“Cabral”) on res judicata, collateral estoppel and witness immunity grounds. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1988). In reviewing the motion to dismiss, we presume that the facts Edmonson alleges in her complaint are true. See id. We will not dismiss Edmonson’s complaint unless it is clear that no set of facts in support of her claims would entitle her to relief. See id.

Although Edmonson fails to challenge the district court’s conclusions that (1) her claims against the City and Agresta were precluded based on her prior action in the California Superior Court (“state court action”); and (2) Cabral enjoys absolute witness immunity, we exercise our discretion to review the court’s decision because the Appellees raise the issues in their brief. See…