Michael Dunn v. James Noe;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
09-16136
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DUNN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES NOE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16136
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-03559-JCS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 13, 2010***
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16136 2
Michael Dunn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking the return of property seized by law
enforcement in March 1993. 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 Dunn has already litigated his claims arising from the seizure
of his property in March 1993. See Dunn v. Noe, No. 02-16849, 2003 WL
1506488 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2003); Dunn v. County of Mendocino, No. A119341,
2008 WL 5156484 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2008); see also Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956
(describing elements of res judicata); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th
Cir. 2009) (under California res judicata principles, “If two actions involve the
same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant, then the same
primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads different
theories of recovery.”) (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Dunn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --