Kaleb L. Basey v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KALEB L. BASEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16900
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08688-JCS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 15, 2023***
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Kaleb L. Basey appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for improper venue his post-conviction motion for the return
of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16900
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Ochoa v. Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc., 48 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2022), cert.
denied, 143 S. Ct. 783 (2023). We affirm.
Dismissal of Basey’s action was proper because it was barred by claim
preclusion. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Res
judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or
could have been raised in a prior action.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and
emphasis omitted)). The District of Alaska granted Basey’s prior Rule 41(g)
motion, which was affirmed by this court in Appeal No. 21-30196. Because
Basey’s prior and current Rule 41(g) motions present an identity of claims, the
prior judgment is final, and the parties are in privity, claim preclusion bars this
action. See United States v. Liquidators of Eur. Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139,
1150-51 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating requirements for claim preclusion to apply).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --