FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX LANGE, No. 13-56593
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01294-GPC-
WMC
v.
TIM NICKERSON; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alex Lange appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging state and federal claims arising out of his arrest.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on
the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lange’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Lange could have raised his § 1983 claims in his
prior California state court action, which involved the same primary rights, the
same parties and their privies, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (in § 1983
actions, a federal court must apply the res judicata law of the state in which the
judgment was entered); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles,
24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557-58 (Ct. App. 2004) (California’s doctrine of “[r]es
judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also
issues that could have been litigated” when, among other things, both actions
involve the same “primary right”); see also Dyson v. Cal. State Pers. Bd., 262 Cal.
Rptr. 112, 118-20 (Ct. App. 1989) (discussing privity requirement and explaining
that “agents of the same government are in privity with each other, since they
represent not their own rights but the right of the government” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Lange’s contentions that the dismissal of his action was premature
and violated his constitutional rights.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56593