NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SCHAEFER, No. 17-15961
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00004-JAD-VCF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BARBARA CEGAVSKY, Secretary of
State, State of Nevada,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a
Nevada election statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a sua sponte dismissal. Omar v. Sea–Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Schaefer’s action was proper because the issues involved were
actually litigated and decided in Schaefer’s prior federal court action. See Taylor
v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation
of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context
of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Howard v.
City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth issue
preclusion elements under federal law).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15961