Case Name: Don Ray PHINNEY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK; et. al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-29
Citations: 10 F. App'x 555
Docket Number: No. 00-55661; D.C. No. CV-99-06421-FMC
Parties: Don Ray PHINNEY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK; et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Don Ray PHINNEY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK; et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-55661.
D.C. No. CV-99-06421-FMC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2001.
Decided May 29, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Don Ray Phinney appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his RICO claims. The district court properly dismissed Phinney's claims against Judges Echols and Wiseman based on their absolute immunity for acts taken in a judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir.1996); Atkinson-Baker & Assoc., Inc. v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 1452, 1454-55 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam). Phinney's claims against the other defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Therefore, dismissal was warranted as to them as well. See Nordhom v. Ladish Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 1402, 1404 (9th Cir.1993).
Phinney also appeals the entry of a vexatious litigant order against him. The district court did not abuse its discretion in entering this order. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.