David Blunt v. City of Salem

Ninth Circuit

David Blunt v. City of Salem

584 F. App'x 439

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 1, 2014·No. 13-35005·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

David H. Blunt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant demolished his house in violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Dismissal of Blunt s action was proper because it is barred by a prior state court decision under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir.1998) (setting forth Oregon’s issue preclusion doctrine and explaining that “[fjederal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they would be given by courts of that state”); Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir.1995) (setting forth Oregon’s claim preclusion doctrine).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

David H. Blunt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant demolished his house in violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Dismissal of Blunt s action was proper because it is barred by a prior state court decision under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir.1998) (setting forth Oregon’s issue preclusion doctrine and explaining that “[fjederal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they would be given by courts of that state”); Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir.1995) (setting forth Oregon’s claim preclusion doctrine).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

David Blunt v. City of Salem, 584 F. App'x 439 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

584 F. App'x 439 (David Blunt v. City of Salem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related