MEMORANDUM **
Daryoush Javaheri appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal on the basis of res judicata). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Javaheris action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Javaheris claims were raised, or could have been raised, in his prior federal action, which involved parties in privity, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.