MEMORANDUM **
Lucio A. Barroga appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to pension benefits from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barrogas action on the basis of claim preclusion because the action involved the same primary right raised in a prior administrative proceeding or state court case that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers’ Assn v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow states preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under California law); see also White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (under California law, a prior administrative decision is “binding in later civil actions to the same extent as a state court decision if the administrative proceeding possessed the requisite judicial character” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Barroga a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for pre-filing review orders).
We reject as without merit Barrogas contentions that the judgment is void, the district court obstructed justice or otherwise acted improperly, and defendants request for extension of time to respond to the complaint was untimely.
Barrogas motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
AFFIRMED.