Case ID: f-appx_604/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Derek TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keirith BRIESENICK, Officer B# 40; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 19, 2015.
    Derek Todd, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Derek Todd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Davis Police officers, Yolo County prosecutors, and his son’s former tutor. 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) (dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Todd’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987 (setting forth res judicata elements and requirements for identity of claims); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action; dismissal for failure to state a claim is a “judgment on the merits” for purposes of the doctrine).

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