Opinion
22-16900
08-30-2023
KALEB L. BASEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:21-cv-08688-JCS for the Northern District of California Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).