Hussein Hussein v. Esmail Zanjani

MEMORANDUM

Hussein Hussein appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action challenging the issuance of subpoenas. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We grant defendants’ motion for judicial notice of the district court and appellate court dockets in the related cases because the record of this case and the parties’ arguments contain numerous references to documents in those cases. See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801 , 803 n. 2 (9th Cir.2002).

1. The Law Firm defendants

The district court granted the Law Firm defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims against them. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal order, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Tahoe-Sierra, Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1076-77 (9th Cir.2003). The allegations in appellant’s complaint were conclusory and failed to allege facts sufficient to state a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2), or 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

In addition, appellant was precluded by principles of collateral estoppel from litigating whether the…