From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tift v. Ball

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 8, 2010
361 F. App'x 848 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-35110.

Submitted December 15, 2009.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Tift's request for oral argument is denied.

Filed January 8, 2010.

Gregory S. Tift. Bellevue, WA, pro se.

Jacob H. Black, Esquire, Daniel Hutzenbiler, Esquire, Robblee Brennan Detwiler, Seattle, WA, Michael D. Ball, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-00276-RSM.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Gregory S. Tift appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961- 1968, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Tift has already litigated his claims of false representation and improper service in a prior federal action between the parties and their privies. See Employee Painters' Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987 (setting forth elements of res judicata).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Tift v. Ball

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 8, 2010
361 F. App'x 848 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Tift v. Ball

Case Details

Full title:Gregory S. TIFT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael D. BALL, and his marital…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 8, 2010

Citations

361 F. App'x 848 (9th Cir. 2010)