Case ID: f-appx_516/html/0654-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. UNDERWOOD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-15926.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    William Sutherland, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Esquire, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner William Sutherland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs in connection with degenerative disk problems in Sutherland’s neck and back. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action as barred by res judicata. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sutherland’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Sutherland could have litigated his claim against Underwood in a prior action, where he also alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in connection with degenerative problems in his neck and back and, as a result, he fell from his upper bunk and injured his shoulder. See id. at 1052 (setting out the elements of res judicata); FTC v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir.2004) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, ‘bars any lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action.’” (citation omitted)).

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