Case Name: Derek TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keirith BRIESENICK, Officer B# 40; 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 562
Docket Number: No. 13-17593
Parties: Derek TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keirith BRIESENICK, Officer B# 40; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
Derek TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keirith BRIESENICK, Officer B# 40; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-17593.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 19, 2015.
Derek Todd, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
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
Derek Todd appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Davis Police officers, Yolo County prosecutors, and his son's former tutor. 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) (dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Todd's claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987 (setting forth res judicata elements and requirements for identity of claims); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action; dismissal for failure to state a claim is a "judgment on the merits" for purposes of the doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.