Barbara A. Stuart Robinson v. Greater Lakes Recovery Center

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA A. STUART ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GREATER LAKES RECOVERY
CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-35669
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05695-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Barbara A. Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims
related to her involuntary detention and treatment at defendant Greater Lakes
* 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).
FILED
MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35669
Recovery Center (“Greater Lakes”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d
758, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Greater Lakes on
the basis of res judicata because Robinson raised, or could have raised, her claims
in her prior Washington state court action, which involved the same parties and
resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d
1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal court must apply state law regarding res
judicata to a prior state court judgment); Ofuasia v. Smurr, 392 P.3d 1148, 1154
(Wash. App. 2017) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Washington law);
Karlberg v. Otten, 280 P.3d 1123, 1130 (Wash. App. 2012) (“[R]es judicata
prohibits the relitigation of claims and issues that were litigated, or could have
been litigated, in a prior action[.]”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --