PAUL BEATON V. AMZN, No. 21-15511 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL NIVARD BEATON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15511 D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00492-AWI-EPG MEMORANDUM* AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on res judicata). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Beaton’s action as barred by res judicata because Beaton’s claims were raised or could have been raised in his prior federal action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008) (“The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”); Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (federal claim preclusion “applies when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Beaton’s motion (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-15511

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.