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:T49e,MEMORANDUM Joseph Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking criminal prosecution of Plu-mas County prosecutor Jeff Cunan for alleged violations of Robinson’s civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth elements of res judicata). Moreover, to the extent that Robinson seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant or to compel the prosecution of another person under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, he lacks standing. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 , 93 S.Ct. 1146 , 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4cb,

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking criminal prosecution of Plu-mas County prosecutor Jeff Cunan for alleged violations of Robinson’s civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth elements of res judicata). Moreover, to the extent that Robinson seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant or to compel the prosecution of another person under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, he lacks standing. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 , 93 S.Ct. 1146 , 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”).

AFFIRMED.

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