ALVIN ALEXANDERSON V. JAMES MONROE, No. 13-36140 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 06 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ALVIN ALEXANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-36140 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00813-HZ v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES GORDON MONROE; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Alvin Alexanderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing on the basis of claim preclusion his action to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Alexanderson’s action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Alexanderson’s claims were based on the same factual transaction at issue in a prior state court action and could have been raised in that action. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that federal court must give same preclusive effect to state court judgment as it would have in the state it was rendered and setting forth Oregon’s claim preclusion doctrine). AFFIRMED. 2 13-36140

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.