DANIELS III v. SHERMAN (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Norman Gerald Daniels III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim related to his legal blindness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Daniels’s action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Daniels alleged nearly identical claims against defendant, or his privy, in a prior federal action in which there was a final judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of claim preclusion); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

AFFIRMED.