Case Name: Marcus L. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. SMITH, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-19
Citations: 604 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 14-16962
Parties: Marcus L. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. SMITH, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Marcus L. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. SMITH, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16962.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 19, 2015.
Marcus L. Harrison, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, 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
Marcus L. Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Smith retaliated against him by issuing a disciplinary report. We have jurisdiction' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrison's action as barred by res judicata because Harrison raised nearly identical claims against the same defendant in a prior federal action where the district court granted summary judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judi-cata, and explaining that res judicata bars "any claims that were raised or could have been raised" in a prior action); see also Féd.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (a dismissal other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or improper joinder "operates as an adjudication upon the merits").
Harrison's request for judicial notice, as set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Harrison's motion for extension of time to file his reply brief, filed on April 6, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.