Wilson v. City of Longview

Full title: Ron WILSON, a married person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LONGVIEW, a…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 29, 2001

18 F. App'x 521 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

18 Fed.Appx. 521 (9th Cir. 2001) Ron WILSON, a married person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LONGVIEW, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-35986. D.C. No. CV-00-05424-JKA. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 29, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Wilson's request for oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Employee brought action against city and city officials alleging that termination of his employment violated his constitutional rights. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, J. Kelley Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, entered summary judgment against employee. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that action was barred by res judicata.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington J. Kelley Arnold, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. ^**

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, 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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ron Wilson appeals the district court's summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the City of Longview and city officials violated his constitutional rights when they terminated his employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because recovery against the City of Longview and Larry Mesneak was available to Wilson in his prior civil rights action against them, and because Robert Gregory was in privity with those defendants, the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds of res judicata. See Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402-03, 60 S.Ct. 907, 84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940). Wilson's contention that Gregory and the other defendants are not in privity, based on a state law case, lacks merit because federal res judicata law applies to the prior federal judgment. See Robi v.

Page 522.

Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.