Paul Nivard Beaton v. Amazon.com, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL NIVARD BEATON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15511
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00492-AWI-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15511
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)
(dismissal based on res judicata). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Beaton’s action as barred by res
judicata because Beaton’s claims were raised or could have been raised in his prior
federal action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment
on the merits. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008) (“The preclusive
effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”);
Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (federal claim preclusion “applies when there is (1) an
identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity
between parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Beaton’s motion (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --