ALVIN ALEXANDERSON v. JAMES GORDON MONROE (2016)

MEMORANDUM *

Alvin Alexanderson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing on the basis of claim preclusion his action to quiet title. 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexanderson's action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Alexanderson's claims were based on the same factual transaction at issue in a prior state court action and could have been raised in that action. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that federal court must give same preclusive effect to state court judgment as it would have in the state it was rendered and setting forth Oregon's claim preclusion doctrine).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.