DAVID BLUNT V. CITY OF SALEM, No. 13-35005 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DAVID H. BLUNT, No. 13-35005 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00788-TC v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF SALEM, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. David H. Blunt appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging that defendant demolished his house in violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * 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). de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. Dismissal of Blunt s action was proper because it is barred by a prior state court decision under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth Oregon s issue preclusion doctrine and explaining that [f]ederal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they would be given by courts of that state ); Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth Oregon s claim preclusion doctrine). AFFIRMED. 2 13-35005

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.