
    Julianna AGARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-17776.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 31, 2014.
    Julianna Agardi, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Wayne Kessler Snodgrass, City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See .Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Agardi's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julianna Agardi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal racketeering and constitutional violations in connection with defendant’s implementation of Proposition N. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Agardi’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Agardi raised, or could have raised, her claims in a prior state court action. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (to determine whether a state court judgment would bar an action in federal court, a federal court must apply the res judicata law of the state in which the .judgment was entered); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 543, 557 (2004) (setting forth the legal standard for res judicata under California law and noting that “[r]es judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated”).

Agardi’s request to show cause and to order the federal government to appear in this case, filed on October 8, 2013, is denied.

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