Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0929-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul CARRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ASSESSOR/RECORDER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17236.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed March 2, 2015.
    Paul Carrick, Los Gatos, CA, pro se.
    Tamyra Ann Rice, Assistant Counsel, Santa Cruz, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Carrick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, and the Homestead Act of 1862, 43 U.S.C. § 161 et seq. (repealed 1976), challenging legal proceedings relating to his real property. 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Carrick’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 id..(res judicata elements and requirements for identity of claims); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir.2002) (“a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits to which res judicata applies”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir.2006) (district court judgment is final for res judicata purposes during pendency of appeal).

We reject as unpersuasive Carrick’s contentions regarding the impact of a purported land patent applying to his property, and his contentions regarding the purported removal of the state court action to federal court.

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