Case Name: Alvin ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Gordon MONROE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-06
Citations: 651 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 13-36140
Parties: Alvin ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Gordon MONROE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.