Opinion of the Court — Hanadel v. Schmidt

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 14, 2002
Case: Hanadel v. Schmidt
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Carl Hanadel appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his Title VII and RICO claims against Alaska Department of Corrections, and individual defendants Randy Blum and Phyllis Schmidt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm. All of Hanadel’s claims against the State of Alaska and Defendant Blum were barred by res judicata as a result of the final judgment entered in favor of these parties by the Alaska Superior Court in Hanadel’s prior litigation against these parties arising out of the same set of facts. White v. State of Alaska, 14 P.3d 956, 959-60 (Alaska 2000) (summarizing Alaska res judicata law); Albano v. Norwest Financial Hawaii, Inc., 244 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.2001). In addition, Hanadel’s claims against Defendant Schmidt were properly dismissed because Title VII liability “does not extend to individual agents of the employer, even if that agent is a supervisory employee.” Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1998). Because any further amendment would have been futile, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.