William Rupert v. Barbara J.R. Jones

Ninth Circuit

William Rupert v. Barbara J.R. Jones

474 F. App'x 660

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 2012

Docket11-15867

StatusUnpublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 660 (William Rupert v. Barbara J.R. Jones) 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

William Rupert v. Barbara J.R. Jones, 474 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

William Rupert and Carol Slater appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment *661 dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the seizure and sale of real property to settle the tax debts of Ronald Bushnell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the defendant judges for their alleged mishandling of Slater’s state court claims because the judges are entitled to absolute immunity. See Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants based on res judicata because Slater and Rupert are precluded from litigating any claim which “arises out of [the same] antecedent primary right and corresponding duty” as addressed in Slater’s previous litigation “regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory ... advanced.” Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 348 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salazar, 318 P.2d 210, 212 (Cal.Ct.App.1957) (applying this principle even where no trial on the merits occurred).

Rupert and Slater’s motion for judicial notice is granted. Their remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

William Rupert and Carol Slater appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment *661 dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the seizure and sale of real property to settle the tax debts of Ronald Bushnell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the defendant judges for their alleged mishandling of Slater’s state court claims because the judges are entitled to absolute immunity. See Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants based on res judicata because Slater and Rupert are precluded from litigating any claim which “arises out of [the same] antecedent primary right and corresponding duty” as addressed in Slater’s previous litigation “regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory ... advanced.” Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 348 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salazar, 318 P.2d 210, 212 (Cal.Ct.App.1957) (applying this principle even where no trial on the merits occurred).

Rupert and Slater’s motion for judicial notice is granted. Their remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-rupert-v-barbara-jr-jones-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack