Case ID: f-appx_651/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alvin ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Gordon MONROE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-36140
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    Filed June 6, 2016
    Alvin Alexanderson, Goldendale, WA, Pro Se.
    Michael W. Peterkin, Attorney, Peterkin & Associates, Bend, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvin Alexanderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing on the basis of claim preclusion his action to quiet title. 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Al-exanderson’s action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Alexan-derson’s claims were based on the same factual transaction at issue in a prior state court action and could have been raised in that action. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 59. F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that federal court must give same preclusive effect to state court judgment as it would have in the state it was rendered and setting forth Oregon’s claim preclusion doctrine).

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