From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexanderson v. Monroe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 6, 2016
651 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 13-36140

06-06-2016

ALVIN ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES GORDON MONROE; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00813-HZ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

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

Alvin Alexanderson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing on the basis of claim preclusion his action to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexanderson's action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Alexanderson's claims were based on the same factual transaction at issue in a prior state court action and could have been raised in that action. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that federal court must give same preclusive effect to state court judgment as it would have in the state it was rendered and setting forth Oregon's claim preclusion doctrine).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Alexanderson v. Monroe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 6, 2016
651 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Alexanderson v. Monroe

Case Details

Full title:ALVIN ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES GORDON MONROE; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 6, 2016

Citations

651 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2016)