911 F. 2d 739 - Tedder v. Peterson
911 F2d 739 Tedder v. Peterson
911 F.2d 739
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Norman E. TEDDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Loren PETERSON and Gene Hanner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-35412.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 3, 1990.*
Decided Aug. 7, 1990.
Before WALLACE, CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Norman E. Tedder appeals pro se the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action as barred by res judicata. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal on res judicata grounds. See Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 903 F.2d 624, 634 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Blasi v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1985)). Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment bars further litigation by the same parties on the same cause of action. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); American Triticale, Inc. v. Nytco Services, Inc., 664 F.2d 1136, 1146-47 (9th Cir.1982) ("[a] judgment in a previous suit is conclusive in a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action ...").
Here, Tedder alleges that on January 24, 1978, defendants Peterson and Hanner illegally searched his residence, subjected him to an illegal arrest, and deprived him of various constitutional rights. These claims, however, have already been unsuccessfully raised by Tedder in two cases before the United States District Court of Oregon, Tedder v. Hanner, et al., Civ. No. 81-6470-E and Tedder v. Peterson, et al., Civ. No. 86-6502-E. Thus, the district court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds.
AFFIRMED.