Case Name: Barry HALAJIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 478 F. App'x 474
Docket Number: No. 11-15681
Parties: Barry HALAJIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Barry HALAJIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15681.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Barry Halajian, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Tamara Bogosian, Attorney Office, Manuel L. Bettencourt, Esquire, Henry Logo-luso & Blum, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Barry Halajian appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights in connection with the impounding of his truck by defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Halajian's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Halajian's claims on the basis of res judica-ta because Halajian had a final adjudication on the merits of these claims in California small claims court. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (preclusive effect of state court judgment is determined by the law of that state); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal.App.4th 901, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 155 (Cal.Ct.App.2000) (under California law, a small claims court judgment precludes further litigation on the same claim).
Because the district court properly dismissed Halajiaris claims as barred by res judicata, Halajiaris remaining arguments about the sufficiency of his pleadings and the merits of his claims are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Ha-lajian's request for oral argument is denied.