Eric J. Holden, Plaintiff-appellant, v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections; Fraunk Sauser,superintendent of Hiland Mountain Correctionscenter, Defendants-appellees, 81 F.3d 168 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Eric Holden, an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from his exposure to asbestos while incarcerated. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

"We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ]." Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992)). "The law is well-settled that 'a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered.' " Pension Trust Fund v. Triple A Mach. Shop, 942 F.2d 1457, 1460 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 85 (1984)).

Here, the district court dismissed Holden's complaint based on res judicata because Holden's state-court action alleging similar Eighth Amendment violations had been dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Under Alaska law, a dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute on the motion of a party operates as a judgment on the merits. See Alaska Civ.R. 41(e); Champion Oil Co., Inc. v. Herbert, 552 P.2d 670, 672 (Alaska 1976); Samber v. Berg, Inc., 394 P.2d 81, 81 (Alaska 1964). A judgment on the merits has preclusive effect under Alaska law. See Calhoun v. State, 857 P.2d 1191, 1193 (Alaska 1993).

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Holden's action on the ground that it was precluded by his prior state court action. See Pension Trust Fund, 942 F.2d at 1460.

AFFIRMED.