Case Name: Roy WARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob WALKUP, individually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Mayor; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 658 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 14-16440
Parties: Roy WARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob WALKUP, individually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Mayor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
Roy WARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob WALKUP, individually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Mayor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16440
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 05, 2016
Roy Warden, Pro Se
Viola RomeroWright, Office of the Tucson City Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Roy Warden appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising from his removal from a public park and arrest at a city council meeting. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate and remand.
In light of our disposition in Warden v. Robinson et al., No. 14-15803, we vacate the judgment in this action and remand to the district court because there is currently no final judgment on the merits precluding this action. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (stating the requirements for application of claim preclusion, including a final judgment on the merits). We express no opinion on the merits of Warden's claims.
Warden's motion to correct the caption, filed on July 28, 2014, is denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.