Forsman v. Port of Seattle

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-5643
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND A. FORSMAN, No. 24-5643 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-01101-RSL v. MEMORANDUM* PORT OF SEATTLE; K. LYLES; STEPHANIE JONES STEBBINS; DELINAS WHITTAKER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Raymond A. Forsman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to disputed fees and the

possession and registration of a fishing vessel. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d

1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal based on res judicata); Watison v. Carter,

668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Forsman’s action because his claims

are barred by res judicata. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (“‘Res judicata . . . bars litigation in a subsequent action

of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.’ The

doctrine is applicable whenever there is ‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final

judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between the parties.’” (citation

omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5643