George Carey; v. United States of America;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE CAREY; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15396
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02504-JAM-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 19, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
George, John, and Byron Carey appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action to quiet title to real property upon which federal
tax liens were ordered foreclosed in prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
SEP 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15396 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956
(9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed appellants’ claim for relief from
judgment in the prior foreclosure action because their allegations are not sufficient
to meet the “demanding standard” of a “grave miscarriage of justice.” United
States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998) (independent action seeking relief from
judgment “should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice”).
The district court properly dismissed appellants’ remaining claims as barred
by the doctrine of res judicata because the claims were the same as those in a prior
action where a final judgment was entered and there is privity of parties. See
Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (explaining when res judicata applies); see also Richards
v. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) (explaining that a judgment that
is binding on a trustee can also bind the beneficiaries of the trust).
Appellants’ contentions concerning the effect of a stipulation with their
parents and their parents’ bankruptcy proceedings are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --