Case Name: Michael SCHAEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara CEGAVSKY, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 707 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 17-15961
Parties: Michael SCHAEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara CEGAVSKY, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
Michael SCHAEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara CEGAVSKY, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-15961
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 21, 2017
Michael Schaefer, Pro Se
Lori M. Story, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada election statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Schaefer's action was proper because the issues involved were actually litigated and decided in Schaefer's prior federal court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars "successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth issue preclusion elements under federal law).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.