Case ID: f-appx_21/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard J. GLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael CABRERA and Mark Holland, Santa Monica, California Police Officers, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-55307.
    D.C. No. CV-00-11262-R.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2001.
    
    Decided Oct. 24, 2001.
    Before REINHARDT, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard J. Glair appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging police officers violated his right to substantive due process by failing to provide adequate notice of traffic violation charges and by incorrectly testifying that he had violated a section of the Vehicle Code. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, see Western Radio Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Glair’s complaint because the issues he raised could have been and should have been raised in his earlier federal action. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 862 (9th Cir.1995) (barring claims based on the same factual transaction that could have been joined in an earlier action).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.