Roger D. Hall v. JOHN G. KORESKI, Business Manager Department of Corrections

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER D. HALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN G. KORESKI, Business Manager
Department of Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-35582
D.C. No. 3:08-CV-00262-HU
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Roger D. Hall, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking a writ of
mandamus to halt the ongoing garnishment of his prison trust account and to
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35582 2
recover funds already garnished. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of
res judicata because Hall has already litigated his claims arising out of the
garnishment of his prison trust account. See Hall v. Hill, No. 3:04-cv-01752-AS,
slip op. at 2 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2005), aff’d, 225 F. App’x 595 (9th Cir. 2007); see
also Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res judicata).
Appellee’s motion for leave to appear and for briefing schedule is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --