Barry Halajian v. The City of Fresno , 478 F. App'x 474 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
BARRY HALAJIAN, No. 11-15681
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01358-AWI-
DLB
v.
THE CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal MEMORANDUM *
Corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Barry Halajian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights in connection
*
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). Accordingly, Halajian’s
request for oral argument is denied.
with the impounding of his truck by defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Halajian’s
action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d
1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Halajian’s claims on the basis of res
judicata because Halajian had a final adjudication on the merits of these claims in
California small claims court. See Migra v. Warrant City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.,
465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (preclusive effect of state court judgment is determined by
the law of that state); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151,
155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (under California law, a small claims court judgment
precludes further litigation on the same claim).
Because the district court properly dismissed Halajian’s claims as barred by
res judicata, Halajian’s remaining arguments about the sufficiency of his pleadings
and the merits of his claims are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15681