PAUL CARRICK V. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ASSESSOR/REC, No. 13-17236 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL CARRICK, No. 13-17236 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01632-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ASSESSOR/RECORDER; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Paul Carrick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, and the Homestead Act of 1862, 43 U.S.C. § 161 et seq. (repealed 1976), challenging legal proceedings * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.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). relating to his real property. 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), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Carrick’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. (res judicata elements and requirements for identity of claims); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits to which res judicata applies”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court judgment is final for res judicata purposes during pendency of appeal). We reject as unpersuasive Carrick’s contentions regarding the impact of a purported land patent applying to his property, and his contentions regarding the purported removal of the state court action to federal court. AFFIRMED. 2 13-17236

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.