JACOB BARRETT V. STATE OF OREGON, No. 15-35432 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 1 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACOB HENRY BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35432 D.C. No. 6:14-cv-01204-HZ v. MEMORANDUM * STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Oregon state prisoner Jacob Henry Barrett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of Barrett’s transfer from custody in Oregon to custody in Florida. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & County, 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2004), aff’d, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (dismissal based on issue preclusion); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We vacate and remand. The Oregon Supreme Court recently affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals reversal of the state trial court’s judgment dismissing Barrett’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Barrett’s complaint on the ground that it was precluded by the prior habeas decision and remand for further proceedings. See Cmty. Bank v. Vassil, 570 P.2d 66, 68-69 (Or. 1977) (if a prior judgment is reversed on appeal, it no longer has preclusive effect); see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 914-15 (9th Cir. 1993) (the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a federal proceeding is governed by state law). Barrett’s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, filed on November 7, 2016, is denied. In light of the decision to remand, we do not reach any other issue on appeal. Defendants shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 15-35432
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.
