David H. Blunt v. City of Salem, a Municipal Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID H. BLUNT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SALEM, a Municipal
Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35005
D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00788-TC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
David H. Blunt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging that defendant demolished his house in
violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
AUG 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henrichs v. Valley
View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Dismissal of Blunt’s action was proper because it is barred by a prior state
court decision under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Dodd v.
Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth
Oregon’s issue preclusion doctrine and explaining that “[f]ederal courts must give
state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they would be given by courts
of that state”); Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1995)
(setting forth Oregon’s claim preclusion doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
13-35005 2

-- 2 of 2 --