Marcus Harrison v. E. Smith

Ninth Circuit

Marcus Harrison v. E. Smith

604 F. App'x 573

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2015

Docket14-16962

StatusUnpublished

This text of 604 F. App'x 573 (Marcus Harrison v. E. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marcus Harrison v. E. Smith, 604 F. App'x 573 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Marcus L. Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Smith retaliated against him by issuing a disciplinary report. We have jurisdiction' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s action as barred by res judicata because Harrison raised nearly identical claims against the same defendant in a prior federal action where the district court granted summary judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judi-cata, and explaining that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have been raised” in a prior action); see also Féd.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (a dismissal other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or improper joinder “operates as an adjudication upon the merits”).

Harrison’s request for judicial notice, as set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

*574 Harrison’s motion for extension of time to file his reply brief, filed on April 6, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.

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 **

Marcus L. Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Smith retaliated against him by issuing a disciplinary report. We have jurisdiction' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s action as barred by res judicata because Harrison raised nearly identical claims against the same defendant in a prior federal action where the district court granted summary judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judi-cata, and explaining that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have been raised” in a prior action); see also Féd.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (a dismissal other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or improper joinder “operates as an adjudication upon the merits”).

Harrison’s request for judicial notice, as set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

*574 Harrison’s motion for extension of time to file his reply brief, filed on April 6, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 F. App'x 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-harrison-v-e-smith-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack