Jimmie Harold Caudle, Jr. v. Bonneville County;

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMIE HAROLD CAUDLE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BONNEVILLE COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35929
D.C. No. 4:06-CV-00188-BLW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jimmie Harold Caudle, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-35929 2
from two alleged incidents of assault, battery, unlawful arrest, and malicious
prosecution as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 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 Caudle has already litigated his claims against defendants and
their privies in state court. See Caudle v. Bonneville County, No. CV-2006-1464,
slip op. at 8 (Idaho Dist. Ct. Apr. 25, 2007); Caudle v. Bonneville County, No. CV-
2006-2581, slip op. at 5 (Idaho Dist. Ct. Sept. 27, 2007); Caudle v. Bonneville
County, No. CV-2007-3068, slip op. at 6 (Idaho Dist. Ct. Jan. 25, 2008); see also
Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 157 P.3d 613, 618 (Idaho 2007) (describing elements of
res judicata under Idaho law).
Caudle’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --