Gregory S. Tift v. Michael D. Ball, and his marital community if any;

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, Tift’s request
for oral argument is denied.
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. TIFT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL D. BALL, and his marital
community if any; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35110
D.C. No. CV-07-00276-RSM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Gregory S. Tift appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-35110 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --