Kaleb Basey v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-16900
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KALEB L. BASEY, No. 22-16900

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08688-JCS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted August 15, 2023***

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Kaleb L. Basey appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing for improper venue his post-conviction motion for the return

of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.

Ochoa v. Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc., 48 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2022), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 783 (2023). We affirm.

Dismissal of Basey’s action was proper because it was barred by claim

preclusion. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Res

judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or

could have been raised in a prior action.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and

emphasis omitted)). The District of Alaska granted Basey’s prior Rule 41(g)

motion, which was affirmed by this court in Appeal No. 21-30196. Because

Basey’s prior and current Rule 41(g) motions present an identity of claims, the

prior judgment is final, and the parties are in privity, claim preclusion bars this

action. See United States v. Liquidators of Eur. Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139,

1150-51 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating requirements for claim preclusion to apply).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16900