Sampson v. California

Full title: Harold W. SAMPSON, III, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 25, 2001

12 F. App'x 601 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

12 Fed.Appx. 601 (9th Cir. 2001) Harold W. SAMPSON, III, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Defendant--Appellee. No. 01-55012. D.C. No. CV-00-00749-RJT. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 25, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). The motion for oral argument filed September 27, 1999 is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Plaintiff appealed from orders of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, J., granting defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim and declining jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) federal suit was barred by res judicata and full faith and credit clause of constitution, and (2) declining to retain jurisdiction over state law claims was not abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Page 602.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Harold W. Sampson appeals the district court's orders granting the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and declining jurisdiction over Sampson's pendent state law claims. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

I

The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Sampson's cause of action had already been determined on its merits between the same parties in the state eminent domain proceeding. Sampson's federal suit thus is barred by res judicata and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 523, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986).

II

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to retain jurisdiction over Sampson's state law claims. See Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1154, 120 S.Ct. 1158, 145 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2000).

AFFIRMED