eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-03

Jacob Barrett v. State of Oregon , 678 F. App'x 472 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACOB HENRY BARRETT,                              No. 15-35432
Plaintiff-Appellant,            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