Case Name: James C. PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP RESORT CASINO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-13
Citations: 453 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 10-35426
Parties: James C. PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP RESORT CASINO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 757–757

Head Matter:
James C. PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP RESORT CASINO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-35426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
James C. Parks, Marysville, WA, pro se.
Lisa Marie Vanderford-Anderson, Office of the Reservation Attorney, Tulalip Tribes Legal Department, Tulalip, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
James C. Parks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. City of Carson, 353 F.3d 824, 826 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Parks's action based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because Parks was barred from relitigating the issue of sovereign immunity after it had been adjudicated in a previous dispute between these same parties. See Hydranautics v. Film-Tec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir.2000) (outlining requirements for application of collateral estoppel).
Parks's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.