Eugene E. Isaacson v. Shawn Berrigan;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EUGENE E. ISAACSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHAWN BERRIGAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15956
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00017-MCE-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eugene E. Isaacson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging a conspiracy by defendants to have his vessel, the
Gray Finn, seized and impounded. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Corrie
FILED
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15956 2
v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 979 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Dismissal of the action was proper because the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel bar Isaacson’s claims given that he had previously litigated
claims arising out of the seizure and impounding of his vessel in California state
court. See Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022,
1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing res judicata under California law); Hydranautics
v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000) (describing collateral estoppel
under California law).
Isaacson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --