William Rupert v. Barbara J.r. Jones, individually, and/or in their Official Judicial and/or…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-15867
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RUPERT and CAROL
SLATER, as individuals and as successors
in interest to Ronald E. Bushnell,
deceased,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BARBARA J.R. JONES, individually,
and/or in their Official Judicial and/or
Administrative Capacities; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15867
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00721-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July l7, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-15867 2
William Rupert and Carol Slater appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with the seizure and sale of real property to settle the tax
debts of Ronald Bushnell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the defendant judges
for their alleged mishandling of Slater’s state court claims because the judges are
entitled to absolute immunity. See Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th
Cir. 2006).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining
defendants based on res judicata because Slater and Rupert are precluded from
litigating any claim which “arises out of [the same] antecedent primary right and
corresponding duty” as addressed in Slater’s previous litigation “regardless of the
specific remedy sought or the legal theory . . . advanced.” Boeken v. Philip Morris
USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Salazar, 318 P.2d 210, 212 (Cal. Ct. App.
1957) (applying this principle even where no trial on the merits occurred).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-15867 3
Rupert and Slater’s motion for judicial notice is granted. Their remaining
contentions are without merit.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --