Unpublished Disposition, 937 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Tim E. Conley appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his action to quiet title to real property. The district court found that the action was barred by res judicata. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990), and affirm.

Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties based on the same cause of action.... Under collateral estoppel, once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation.

Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979) (citations omitted).

This is the third action in which Conley has sought to contest title to the same real property. In the state court probate proceedings, the court decided the matter on the merits adversely to Conley. In re Estate of John Paul Conley, No. 84-400018-1. Conley then brought an action in district court challenging the constitutionality of the recording statute. Conley v. The Matter of the Estate of John P. Conley, C-87-213-JLQ. That action was dismissed on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Conley now seeks to relitigate the same claims regarding title to the property and the constitutionality of the recording statute. These claims already have been decided on the merits against Conley. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed Conley's claims as barred by res judicata. See Montana, 440 U.S. at 153.

AFFIRMED.