Marcus L. Harrison v. E. SMITH, Officer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCUS L. HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. SMITH, Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16962
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03186-JST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marcus L. Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant Smith retaliated against him by issuing a disciplinary report. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry,
FILED
MAY 19 2015
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 --

584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s action as barred by res
judicata because Harrison raised nearly identical claims against the same defendant
in a prior federal action where the district court granted summary judgment on the
merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting
forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and explaining that res judicata bars
“any claims that were raised or could have been raised ” in a prior action); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (a dismissal other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper
venue, or improper joinder “operates as an adjudication upon the merits”).
Harrison’s request for judicial notice, as set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
Harrison’s motion for extension of time to file his reply brief, filed on
April 6, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
14-16962 2

-- 2 of 2 --