Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George CAREY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2012.
    George Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    Byron Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    John Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    Kart D. Larson, Esquire, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bridget Maria Rowan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Leone Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
    Michael Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

George, John, and Byron Carey appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action to quiet title to real property upon which federal tax liens were ordered foreclosed in prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ claim for relief from judgment in the prior foreclosure action because their allegations are not sufficient to meet the “demanding standard” of a “grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998) (independent action seeking relief from judgment “should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice”).

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ remaining claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the claims were the same as those in a prior action where a final judgment was entered and there is privity of parties. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (explaining when res judi-cata applies); see also Richards v. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 517 U.S. 793, 798, 116 S.Ct. 1761, 135 L.Ed.2d 76 (1996) (explaining that a judgment that is binding on a trustee can also bind the beneficiaries of the trust).

Appellants’ contentions concerning the effect of a stipulation with their parents and their parents’ bankruptcy proceedings are unpersuasive.

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