Forsman v. Port of Seattle

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6

7 RAYMOND A. FORSMAN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01101-RSL 8 Plaintiff, v. 9

10 PORT OF SEATTLE, et al., ORDER OF DISMISSAL

11 Defendants. 12

13 On July 25, 2024, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted 14 and his complaint was accepted for filing. Plaintiff alleges that the Port of Seattle and three 15 of its employees conspired to charge him fees not actually owed and denied him legal 16 possession and registration of a fishing vessel in violation of three federal criminal statutes, 17 a federal regulation, a tribal management agreement, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The 18 conduct of which plaintiff complains apparently occurred in or before 2019 because he 19 alleges that defendants’ refusal to allow him to replace his vessel caused him to miss the 20 2019-2024 fishing seasons. 21 Many of the same legal claims arising from the same events were asserted in 22 Forsman v. Port of Seattle, C19-2050RSL, Forsman v. Port of Seattle, C21-867RSL, 23 and/or Forsman v. Port of Seattle, C23-1394RSM. All three of those cases were dismissed 24 with prejudice, the first on the merits, the second on the merits and under the doctrine of 25 res judicata, and the third under the doctrine of res judicata. In the caption of the current 26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1 1 complaint, plaintiff references two of these three lawsuits as follows: “per Judge Martinez 2 cv/01394/RSM refile original complaint cv-19-02050-RSL.” Dkt. # 5 at 1. 3 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits bars further 4 claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” United States v. 5 Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 6 147, 153 (1979)). The doctrine bars not only claims that were actually raised, but also 7 those that “could have been raised in the prior action.” W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 8 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997). Res judicata applies where there is (1) an identity of 9 claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between parties. Tritz 10 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Glickman, 123 F.3d at 11 1192). A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is 12 considered a “final judgment on the merits.” Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 13 394, 399 (1981); Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino, 181 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1999). 14 The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s complaint in this case and the pleadings in 15 his prior cases against the Port of Seattle, finds that plaintiff is attempting to assert claims 16 based on the same conduct that was at issue in the prior lawsuits. Although plaintiff now 17 sues additional Port of Seattle employees, they are in privity with the Port, are not accused 18 of any separate or independent wrongs, and could have been sued in the previously 19

21 // 22

23 // 24 25 26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2 1 dismissed actions. The Court is required to dismiss a complaint if the action fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the claims 3 asserted are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, relief is unavailable and amendment 4 would be futile. The case is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. 5

6 Dated this 16th day of August, 2024.

7 8 Robert S. Lasnik 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3