James C. Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES C. PARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TULALIP RESORT CASINO,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-35426
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01219-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
James C. Parks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. City of Carson, 353 F.3d
824, 826 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
FILED
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35426 2
The district court properly dismissed Parks’s action based on the doctrine of
collateral estoppel because Parks was barred from relitigating the issue of
sovereign immunity after it had been adjudicated in a previous dispute between
these same parties. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th
Cir. 2000) (outlining requirements for application of collateral estoppel).
Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --